The URL can be used to link to this page

04-14-97 PC Agenda AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers APRIL 14, 1997 7pm I. Approval of Minutes - March 24, 1997 II. Informal Public Hearing -- (Continued from March 10, 1997) -Preliminary Design Plan -- Planned Unit Development No. 75 Applicant: Address: Purpose: Menard, Inc. 6800 Wayzata Boulevard, Golden Valley, Minnesota Review of the Preliminary Design Plan to allow for a mixed use of retail, office, warehouse and a lumber yard on the existing Menard site. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition onto the west side of the building and the north side of the building. III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Address: Request: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota To change the designation of the subject property from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Address: Request: Hennepin County Property Services 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) --- SHORT RECESS --. V. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals VI. Other Business VII. Adjournment e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Prazak at 7pm. These present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, Lewis, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Elizabeth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary. 1. Approval of Minutes - February 24, 1997 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to approve the February 24, 1997 minutes as submitted with one spelling correction on page seven. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 10, 1997 minutes as submitted with the following corrections: e Page Six, Paragraph 6 -- ...has access to Sweeney Lake, ... Page Eleven, Third line -- delete space Page Nineteen, Paragraph 3 -- Change Developer Grimes to Director and combine paragraph 3 and 4 II. Election of Officers - This item was moved to after the informal public hearings. III. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (Lot Consolidation) Applicant: Art Bakshian (Ace Label Systems Inc.) Address: Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mueller Industrial Park Purpose: To allow for the consolidation of two lots. (The applicant is proposing to construct a conforming, one-story building for office, storage and manufacturing use.) Beth Knoblauch gave a brief summary of her staff report commenting on a previous request which subdivided the subject property. She noted that there was a particular company interested in one of the lots but no construction ever took place. Knoblauch told the commission that the potential buyer of these lots would now like to construct a e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Two building using both lots and is therefore requesting a lot consolidation. She commented that if the commission recommends approval that a condition be noted that the final plat must show easements around all property lines as required by code. Chair Prazak asked if the applicant had further comments or questions. Linda Rundell, Vice President, Ace Label Systems, Inc., commented that staffs comments were sufficient. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing Steve Svensen, 7135 Madison Ave. W. and current owner of the subject property, commented on the previous lot subdivision and is in favor of the current request to consolidate the two lots. Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. e Chair Prazak commented that the proposed request is a very strait forward issue of joining two small lots. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council for the consolidation of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Mueller Industrial Park with the condition that the final plat show easements around the entire property. IV. Informal Public Hearing - Review of the Capital Improvement Program (eIP) Chair Prazak gave a brief summary of the hearing process for CIP review. Don Taylor, Finance Director, reviewed the CIP noting that this CIP was for the years 1997-2001, and outlined changes from the previous CIP. Taylor handed out additional information and talked about the City's Pavement Management Program, noting street reconstruction costs. He told the commission about the Council's previous discussions and citizenry input concerning reconstruction of the streets and other street programs like overlays. He noted that the Council decided to stop reconstruction of streets for 1997 in order to review the entire Pavement Management Program. Taylor noted that the City's biggest asset is its streets. He also commented that something will be to be done with the streets, and so in the following years (1998-2001) the CIP reflects the same expenditures as in the past; it is unclear, at this time, what the outcome of the program will be. e e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Three Commissioner Kapsner asked if this item was studied seven years ago. Taylor said yes, the first reconstruction project was in 1988. Chair Prazak asked if there would be streets reconstructed in 1997. Taylor said no, but there would be the regular maintenance of streets. He noted that complete reconstruction of streets would not be done other than Poplar Drive. Prazak asked Taylor where the funds would come from to do the study. Taylor said some money would come from the General Fund and if a consultant is needed, these funds would come from the street improvement levy. Commissioner Lewis asked if the Mayor had directed staff to start the study. Taylor answered no that the Council is looking at how to proceed and staff may be given direction this summer. e Commissioner Lewis asked if Noble Avenue would be completed this summer. Taylor said yes because it is funded through state-aid money. He also noted that most of the work on Noble had been completed last year and all that was left was a final coat and landscaping repair. Director Taylor briefly talked about the Schaper Property. He noted that this area was renamed in the CIP as the Schaper Area Project which involves stormwater holding ponds, trail work, environmental clean-up of the whole area and the ballfields. Taylor briefly talked about the area being a dumping site and that soil will be added to it, and that there will be ponds established, including settling ponds and that some ponds would be rerouted. He told the commission that the City has been talking with Hennepin Parks about a bike trail through the area which would be paid for by Hennepin County. Taylor noted that the environmental work would require money to be put into the CIP. Commissioner Pentel asked how much money would be put into the CIP from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Taylor answered that the entire area would be with TIF money except for the trail. Commissioner Pentel commented on the movement of the mitigation pond and the effect of previously moving it may have on the many frogs in the area. She asked if this pond would stay. Director of Public Works, Fred Salsbury commented that the mitigation pond will stay where it is. e Commissioner McAleese asked for an explanation of the proposed City imaging system. Taylor noted that computer technological has gotten to a point where City documents can now be stored on computer disc, which allows for easy access and retrieving of e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Four information. This process is also considered as a time saving mechanism and storage saver. McAleese also asked how stored, private information would remain private. Taylor commented that staff would be working with a retention schedule put out by the State and the City would be dealing with data privacy issues. Taylor said that the retrieval of documents could also be used by the public. Chair Prazak asked about the replacement of computers every five years and what happens to the discarded computers. Taylor said that some of the old computers are used by other departments. He said that due to the constant software change the computers become incompatible because of changes in speed. e Commissioner McAleese commented on the proposed motor grader and how the City was acquiring this piece. Salsbury commented that under a state legislation various governmental bodies have the power to do joint purchasing to get a better price. He noted that this particular item was being bought through Polk County and the City is able to take advantage of a large purchase and still get a good product. McAleese asked about having to put out bids for this item and Salsbury noted that because of the state legislative law, bids are not required. Chair Prazak asked how much the City would be saving, Salsbury answered between $30,000 and $40,000. McAleese asked how the City knows that the government agency buying the product is abiding by the law, Salsbury commented that the City checks into the purchase. Commissioner McAleese asked Finance Director Taylor about the firing range upgrade - public safety building, noting the year in the CIP stated 1996. Taylor said that there has been much discussion on this topic and with the new building being roughed in, things are ready to proceed. McAleese also asked about the rubber backstops at the fire range and what was the expected life cycle of the backstops and how is this projected in the CIP. Taylor said that the rubber backstop is made of recycled heavy duty tires and that it should last indefinitely, but if it needs to be replaced it would not be expensive or difficult to do. Commissioner Pentel asked about the Schaper property and when Hennepin County would be ready to proceed with the trail. Taylor said that they are now ready and that the City Council needs to approve a contract with Hennepin County and a bid would be let. e Commissioner Pentel asked if the ballfield would be gated. Salsbury said it probably would be based on discussion with the City Council. Pentel asked if the tot lot would be built and Salsbury said yes and this area would not be gated. Pentel said that she was concerned with the ball fields being gated, in that families would not be able to use it on weekends. Director Grimes said that there probably would be tournament play on the fields on Saturdays and Sundays, and that the fields would be open until 10pm. . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Five Commissioner McAleese asked about the full size soccer field at the Arts School on Hwy. 55 and is glad to see this happenings. Taylor said that the City is now reviewing a Joint Power Agreement which will be before the City Council soon. He also noted that there would be sharing of cost and usage of the field. Taylor noted there would be some expense to making the field ready because it had not been used for some time. Commissioner Groger asked about the amount of parking on the Arts School site. Grimes noted that there is a lot of parking available. Commissioner Groger questioned Taylor about there being no funds in the CIP after 1998 for tree planting. Taylor said that the City has made an effort to do major tree plantings and any money needed would come out ofthe General Fund after 1998. He told the commission that in order to place a tree planting item in the CIP it would required $10,000 per year and the City Forester does not believe there will be that much need for tree planting in future years. Commissioner McAleese suggested doing a "tree adoption" program. e Chair Prazak asked if the revenues taken in by the Brookview Golf Course covers its operations and where does capital improvements come from. Taylor said that the revenue generated from Brookview also covers capital improvements. Commissioner Pentel said she was glad to see plantings around the pond areas because this would help any erosion problems and that it helps citizens see what is acceptable around ponds other than grass. Commissioner Groger asked about the proposed fencing on the golf course and was this a matter of aesthetics. Taylor noted that the fencing is needed along Hwy. 55 because of the busy road and the fence is being recommended because of safety concerns. Taylor noted that golf course employees had said that fencing is needed because of safety concerns. Taylor said he would review his information on this item for more specifics and report back to the commission. Commissioner Pentel asked if a lower fence wouldn't be more esthetically pleasing and still keep cars and people off the course. Groger asked about landscaping being included with the fencing project. Commissioner Pentel asked about the playing fields at Schied Park and which field would be turned into a little league field. She also inquired about the lot the City owns abutting Schied Park. Taylor commented that there has been no discussion concerning the City owned lot and is uncertain at this time which field will be for little league play. . Commissioner McAleese referred to that part of the CIP on sidewalks and asked when the last time the sidewalk committee met. Salsbury noted that it had been a couple of years since the this committee met and that the committee would be meeting this year. Chair e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Six Prazak asked if staff knew how many citizens were concerned about sidewalks. Salsbury commented that the Engineering Department does receive calls concerning sidewalks but that most people calling do not want sidewalks. Commissioner McAleese asked about street rating system and what was the timing to do this rating. Taylor noted that streets are not rated every year. Salsbury said that new readings of streets are done to do upgrades and that every third year a complete assessment of all streets is done to see which ones are deteriorating. e Commissioner Pentel asked staff if the City would be using different sources to obtain the City's water supply other than Minneapolis. Salsbury commented that the reason the City is looking for alternative water sources is because the City is anticipating a fairly significant increase in the charge from Minneapolis for water, although he is not sure about this. He noted that the City's contract with the City of Minneapolis is coming up for renegotiation. Salsbury said that currently there is a study underway. Pentel asked how long the City has been paying for water from Minneapolis. Salsbury said since the 1960's. Pentel commented that its unfortunate that because Minneapolis needs to upgrade and increase prices that the City would jump ship. Salsbury noted that the decision to find another supplier would be made by the policy makers. He also talked about the City being in a consortium with the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale. He talked about the interconnection of pipes and the decisions that need to be made to keep things going. Salsbury told the commission that General Mills has indicated that they have wells to provide water to the City and this would be a win-win situation for them because they must meet standards set out concerning water. Pentel noted that this item was not showing up in the CIP. Taylor said that more information is needed to make a decision and will may need to be put into the CIP for consideration. Commissioner McAleese asked if each of the cities in the consortium were negotiating with Minneapolis. Salsbury commented that there is only one contract among the cities and that the Joint Water Commission purchases the water. Commissioner Kapsner commented that he feels that the City of Minneapolis would need to spend money no matter what to supply Minneapolis with water and the City of Golden Valley is actually giving them a lot of money that is "free" to them. Salsbury said that Kapsner was correct on that perspective, that the consortium buys approximately 12-15% of water from Minneapolis and this will be part of the negotiations. Kapsner asked if the City had other options for purchasing water and Salsbury said the City was looking into this. e Commissioner McAleese asked about the Covenant Manor area storm sewer and if trail system, along Bassett Creek, would affected by the storm sewer. Director Grimes said that it would not be. He briefly talked about a proposed PUD for Covenant Manor which e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Seven includes ponding. He also talked about placing the ponding on City owned property and private property and that the trail would be maintained. Salsbury noted that the real purpose is to treat City water and the proposed pond would help treat water going into Bassett Creek. This is a water quality issue. Commissioner McAleese commented on the amount of water that collects in the parking lot of the office buildings to the north of Covenant Manor. Salsbury noted that this area would be included. Commissioner Groger commented that in the area where the pond is proposed is a lot of old construction debris and would clean-up be part ofthis project. Salsbury said yes. Groger commented on additional debris in the area near the tot lot and believes this area should also be cleaned up. e Chair Prazak commented on the commission reviewing the 132 pages of the CIP and believes that they brought forward issues that the general public would have had questions on, and that the commission has raised a number of instances where staff has exhibited be excellent stewardship in saving tax dollars and thanked staff. Commissioner Groger pointed out an typographical error on Page Eight concerning the year. Taylor said this would be corrected. Chair Prazak opened the informal public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one, Chair Prazak closed the informal public hearing. MOVED by Pentel, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the submitted CIP. II. Election of Officers Chair Prazak opened nominations for Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary. Commissioner Groger nominated Pentel for Chair, seconded by Johnson. Groger noted that Pentel would make a good chairperson. Johnson nominated Groger for Vice-Chair, seconded by Pentel. Lewis nominated Johnson for Secretary, seconded by Kapsner. Chair Prazak approved the nominations by acclamation. The vote was unanimous. V. Reports on Meetings ofthe Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, and Board of Zoning Appeals e No meetings were reviewed. e Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page Eight VI. Other Business A. Review of Attendance. Commissioner Prazak commented on the good attendance record of the commission. B. Summary Judgment in Otten Case. Staff briefly commented on the summary . C. Follow-up on Planning Commission Cable Casting. The commission briefly review the handout concerning cost and the Council's wish for the Planning Commission meetings to be cable-casted. D. Letter from the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission Regarding the Hidden Lakes Development. Staff briefly noted the letter enclosed in the agenda packets. e E. Resignation of Commission Lewis. Commissioner Lewis said that she would be contacting Mayor Anderson concerning her resignation from the Planning Commission due to work commitments. VII. Adjournment Commissioner Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:35pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . e MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 1997 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Subject: Continued Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) No. 75 -- 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -- Menard, Inc., Applicant e At the March 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the consideration of the subject matter until additional information could be gathered by Menard and provided to the City staff. The additional information that was needed was regarding the adequacy of parking for the site, screening, and the driveway width near Market Street. Since the March 10 meeting, the City has received a revised site plan, additional parking information and a proposal to provide a 14 ft. high, wood screen along portions of the north and west property line: At the last meeting, the staff was also concerned about the future of the 8,000 . sq.ft. MGM space. Staff had previously understood that the MGM would be removed from the site when the lease with MGM ended in 2001. (MGM renewed their lease with Menard fo( five more years, late in 1996. This was the final five year option for MGM.) The reason that staff recommended the use of a P.U.D. on this site was because there are currently two uses on the site, a lumber yard (Menard) and the liquor store. The lumber yard by itself would not qualify as a P.U.D. The plan was to permit the MGM space to remain for the final five year term of the lease under a P.U.D. After 2001, MGM would vacate the 8,000 sq. ft. store and it would be converted to Menard space. The P.U.D. would continue to exist when Menard takes over the entire site. The P.U.D. would also allow Menard to expand and permit it to operate with fewer parking spaces than would be required under normal zoning. Menard has now agreed that after 2001, Menard will take over the MGM space for use as a lumber/building material store. Parking was a major concern when this development was reviewed in March. At that time, a total of 366 spaces were indicated on the site plan. Staff felt that this number was fewer than is necessary to handle the peak shopping days for Menard. The City hired Glen VanWormer of SEH Consulting Engineers to review the parking study done by Benshoof and Assoc. for Menard. Mr. e e VanWormer felt that the parking was fewer than would be needed to meet their peak parking on a busy spring day. Since that meeting, Menard has revised their site plan to provide a total of 434 parking spaces on-site or 68 more spaces than were provided on the site plan submitted in March. Seventy-one (71) of those spaces will be located in the north yard area and be reserved for contractor/commercial customers. A special card will be issued to these customers that will allow direct access to the yard prior to a purchase. Currently, customers must first purchase the product and show a receipt before they may enter the yard area north of the store and pick it up. Menard believes that this will alleviate some of the demand for spaces in the front, especially for large vehicles or vehicles with trailers. There will be a total of 363 spaces in the front or side of the store. Several spaces were eliminated along the Market Street side in order to improve the access from that entrance point. This was a suggestion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Benshoof believes that these added 68 spaces will provide enough space for the peak demand of Menard. With a reduction of the 434 spaces by 10% for . parking inefficiencies (people hogging two spaces, snow storage, trailers, big trucks, etc.) a total of 391 spaces are provided on the new site plan. This is about 60 more spaces than provided on the March plan. Staff believes that Menard has made a good effort to meet thaneeded parking for the store. Menard staff also believe that there is more than adequate space with the 434 spaces. The store manager stated that this amount should be more than adequate, especially with the expected drop in store volume due to the opening of the Home Depot in St. Louis Park this Spring. They have also provided us with the parking lot sizes for other stores of similar or greater size. In each case the Golden Valley Menard store would haVe more parking and less square feet than the other stores listed. - - The yard parking will be only for commercial or contractor parking. This is about 25 percent of Menard's business. Menard is starting a program to offer perks to these customers which will encourage the use of the yard parking. City staff would suggest that this yard parking be accepted but if it is not used and there is a shortage of parking in the front lot, Menard will have to open up the rear lot for any customer. This would have to be at the discretion of the City of Golden Valley and would become a part of the P.U.D. permit. The staff will recommend as part of the P.U:D. approval that none of the parking area be used for outdoor sales of Christmas trees, storage buildings, etc. The staff believes that there is adequate parking for the existing use but not for these other uses in the parking area. Menard is also proposing a 14 foot high brown treated wood wall along portions of the north and west property lines. This would take the place of the metal screening now on the north side. The wood wall would also be a pallet rack on the other side providing for additional storage of materials. The proposed wood screening is an improvement over the metal wall and the color is an earth tone. In addition, this 14 foot high wall will screen the storage lot from the residences to the north as required in the Zoning Code. The existing fence shelters would e e 2 e remain the same along the east property lines. The existing warehouse along the north property line would also remain. The existing setback for building and parking would remain as they are today. In 1988, the BZA granted several setback variances. Along the frontage road, the setback from the property line is 20 feet to the parking lot. The required setback is 35 feet. This reduction was approved by variance as part of the taking done for 1-394 by MnDOT. Variances were also granted along Market Street and Hampshire Street for the existing setback of 20 feet. Along the Laurel Avenue side, the building meets the 35 foot setback except by the warehouse where it is 35 feet 10 inches. Along the northwest property line, the setback is 10 feet to the structures where the setback should be 20 feet. The proposed additions will exceed the 35 foot setback requirement from Market Street. The site plan indicates m[nimallandscaping of the site. If the P.U.D. is proposed, a landscape plan will have to be prepared for the site as part of the Building Board of Review procedure. Staff suggests that a more detailed preliminary landscape plan be prepared for submittal to the City Council as part of the preliminary design plan review. Staff would also like to see an improvement to the fence along Hampshire Lane and Wayzata Blvd. This fence is a rural type fence. The purpose of the fence is to prevent persons from parking in the Menard lot and crossing the street to the fast food restaurants. Staff would like to suggest that some other type of a wood fence- be put in its place. Staff would like to discuss this issue with Menard. There was concern by one of the neighbors to the north regarding the noise from the public address system in the north yard. The staff recommends that the loud speaker system be eliminated. There are other electronic methods for notifying employees. e RECOMMENDED ACTION Everyone is familiar with the Menard store. With the P.U.D. there will be several changes. There will be a 16,000 sq.ft. addition that will be added to the southwest side of the store. A 10,600 sq.ft. addition will be place onto the northeast side of the building along with an overhang to cover the loading dock. A new wood screen will be placed along most of the north and west property line. Commercial and contractor parking will be added to the rear lot. The 8,000 sq. ft. MGM Liquor store will be phased out in 2001, which will bring the site into conformance with the Industrial section of the Zoning Code. The number of parking spaces on the site will be increased to 434 spaces to serve a total of 123,352 sq.ft. of building~ The entire site will operate as a P.U.D. where the City has control over its expansion and operation. Based on these proposed changes, staff recommends approval of this concept for development. The new plan addresses the concern of staff for increased parking and the eventual elimination of the MGM store. The staff recommends that the approval of the preliminary design plan be given with the following conditions: e 3 e 1. The site plan dated 10/18/96 be the accepted plan which indicates the parking. setbacks. screening, buildings, and additions. 2. If the City determines that parking is not adequate for customers in the front lot. Menard will be required to open the 71 spaces north of the building for all customers. This would be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Development. 3. No outside sales will be permitted in the parking lot including Christmas trees and storage buildings. 4. The MGM space will revert to Menard space in 2001. If MGM chooses to leave their lease prior to 2001, the space mayonly be converted to Menard uses. 5. All outside loudspeakers will be eliminated. 6. A preliminary landscape plan shall be prepared for City Council consideration prior to preliminary design plan review by the City Council. 7. A code compliance study for the new additions shall be completed prior to revieW of the General Plan of Development by the City Council. e Attachments: Menard's List of Zoning Variances List of Menards Home Improvement Centers - Available Parking Contractor Benefit List Customer Counts (2 sheets) Letter from P. Harrigan dated April 4. 1997 Benshoof and Associates letter to P. Harrigan dated April 3, 1997 Letter from P. Harrigan dated March 13, 1997 Memo from Mark Grimes dated March 10,1997 SEH letter dated March 10, 1997 Memo from Mark Grimes dated March 6, 1997 Benshoof and Associates memo dated January 14, 1997 Site Plan (enclosed separately) Elevation Plan (enclosed separately) . 4 e e e ZONING V ARlANCES Mixed Use - Lumber yard and Retail Facility- The area surrounding the parcel in which this P.UD. application covers is a varied use area which includes restaurants, car dealerships and other similar uses which have similar types of operations as this parcel and has a similar effect on the community. This parcel coincides nicely with these adjacent uses. Additionally, the location in question is adjacent to an Interstate Highway and acts as a "buffer" type area between the congestion of a highway and the less congested area of residential homes. The use requested will fit nicely as a flexible transition parcel between these two areas. Parking - According to the attached parking study completed in regard to this parcel, parking will be sufficient to meet the needs of the businesses on this parcel, taking into consideration the increase in building size and parking spaces proposed. The study also indicates that the number of spaces will be sufficient at peak times of the day and year accounting for all uses on this parcel. Menards has numerous stores around the midwest in cities of various sizes and in various locations. Menards has considered parking demands in depth over the course of development of these stores and has determined the parking needs for this type of operation. For instance, new prototype stores are designed to 400 parking spaces for 165,000 sq. ft. facilities. By comparison the parking on this parcel will suffice to meet the needs of customers, employees and all vehicular traffic. An additional comment to the enclosed study includes the fact that a significant number of customer vehicles on this parcel may be in the "yard" area and not parked in the front parking lot. Past experience has shown that, during summer construction season, the vehicle count in the "yard" portion of Me nards parcel may run as high as 30 percent. If at some time in the future this parcel is no longer used as a Menards operation, any future user would have as much as 3 acres of space that could become additional parking area. Overall, Menards has the same concern as the City in this issue in that Menards wants its customers to have easy access to adequate parking and ingress and egress, to the Menard's facility so that customers have a pleasant visit to Menard's store. The type of merchandise sold in a Menards store differs from that sold in a typical retail store, which changes the consideration for what is necessary for parking supply. For instance, Menard utilizes a significant amount of its calculated floor space for large items such as doors, windows, etc. which take up much more floor space than a retail store with shelves stocked full . of widgets. Thus, floor space in a Menard's facility is under utilized in compariSollwith standard retail facilities. A further justification exists to grant the proposed number of parking spaces on this parcel in that the additions proposed to the west side of the building should not be considered in calculations for parking demand since the area is currently used for product display area and will continue to be used for product displays. Thus, even though the area will be enclosed, it will not increase the demand on parking over any current demand. e Setbacks - The setbacks currently existing on this parcel are under a variance approved by the City of Golden Valley. The setbacks proposed on this parcel are not a significant deviation from the required setbacks in light of the significant amount of open space on this parcel, as a whole. This parcel includes a parking lot on the front of the parcel, a landscaped area around the majority of the land immediately adjacent to the public streets and a large "yard" area which provides a significant amount of "open space" on this parcel. These open areas contribute to the aesthetic and feel of the parcel negating any negative effects of a non-standard set-back and also promotes the safety and welfare of the citizens of Golder:. VaHey. e e e Menards Home Improvement Centers Available Parking 'p'r.Q!Q!Y.R.e lItO 60..Q.Q92D Store Location # Parking Stalls Opening Date Appleton, WI 403 9- 7 -95 Batavia, IL 407 5-16-96 Bellevue, NE 411 12-21-95 Bellevue, WI 422 1-21-97 Cottage Grove, MN 405 8-8-96 Dolton, IL 426 6-20-96 Eau Claire West, WI 415 2-08-96 F ox Lake, IL 397 3-28-96 Madison, WI 444 - 2-20-97 Minot, NO 401 2-15-96 Onalaska, WI 407 2-15-96 Sterling, IL 417 5-5-96 e .P.r9J&ty.p.~ II-C 14 5 ..Q.QQ. s. fj Ankeny, IA 298 8-11-94 Bradley, IL 343 12-15-94 Cedar Rapids, IA 356 8-10-95 Chicago, IL 249 5-16-96 Council Bluffs, IA 319 1-94 Elkhart, IN 319 12-22-95 Fond du Lac, WI 350 8-03-95 Goshen, IN 327 1-5-95 Grand Island, NE 335 3-16-95 Grand Rapids, MI 374 1-26-95 Gurnee, IL 317 3-94 Hudson, WI 317 6-30-94 Indianapolis North, IN 363 2-94 Indianapolis South, IN 311 3-94 Iowa City, IA 319 9-1-94 Machesney Park, IL 363 10-19-95 Mason City, IA 330 12-15-94 Matteson, IL 302 4-28-94 Mishawaka, IN 339 1-05-95 e Norfolk, NE 323 3-09-95 Norton Shores, MI 323 2-16-95 e MENARDS WELCOMES ALL CONTRACTORS iERE ARE THE EXCELLENT BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACTOR CLUB AT ALL MENARDS STORES. t FREE DELIVERY FOR PURCHASES OF $1,000.00 OR MORE" WITH-IN 15 MILES OF THE STORE- (ASK FOR DETAILS). , DELIVERY IS AVAILABLE 7 DAYS A WEEK DURING ALL STORE HOURS. f C. o. D YOUR PURCHASES. INQUIRE AT YOUR MENARDS STORE. r YOU CAN FAX ORDERS TO OUR STORE. PRE-APPROVED CHECK ACCEPTANCE, UPON COMPLETED AND APPROVED SEPARATE APPLICATION. DIRECT ACCESS INTO THE OUTSIDE YARD (WHERE AVAILABLE) WITH YOUR PERSONAL CONTRACTOR CLUB CARD. ONE CONTRACTOR CLUB CARD IS GOOD AT ALL MENARDS STORES. YOUR BUSINESS CARD IN OUR "CALL A CONTRACTOR" BOOKS. FREE ESTIMATES. COMPUTERIZED SERVICES INCLUDE: -CUSTOM PAINT MATCHING -KITCHEN DESIGN & ESTIMATING -CRESTLINE & ANDERSON WINDOW ESTIMATING OVER 300 HOUSES, 500 GARAGES, 600 DECKS AND 200 POLE BUILDINGS PRE- FIGURED TO SAVE YOU TIME. GllPUTERIZED GARAGE DO-IT CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO DESIGN A GARAGE ~GE AND RECEIVE PRICES AND A PRINTOUT IN JUST MINUTES. CONTRACTOR APPRECIATION BREAKFAST WITH GIFTS AND PRIZES. "CONTRACTOR NEWSLETTER" WHICH HELPS CONTRACTORS KEEP INFORMED AND UPDATED ON MENARDS SERVICES, NEW PRODUCT LINES AND FREE GIFTS. MENARDS STORES ARE A "360 DAY A YEAR HOME SHOWROOM" FOR CONTRACTORS AND CUSTOMERS. FRIENDLY ASSOCIATES ARE READILY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICE. A FANTASTIC SPECIAL ORDER PROGRAM SECOND TO NONE; WE CAN GET THE PRODUCTS YOU WANT. COMPETITIVE PRICING POLICY - WE WILL NOT BE UNDERSOLD. E-Z FORMS FOR CLUB MEMBERS TO LIST WHAT YOU ARE PURCHASING FOR FAST INVOICING AT THE BUILDING MATERIALS DEPARTMENT. CUSTOM ENGINEERING SERVICE FOR POST FRAME BUILDINGS, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. CUSTOM TRUSS DESIGN/ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION SERVICE. SELF SERVI CE TI CKETS FOR GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE STORE FAST. MENARDS ACCEPTS VISA, MASTERCARD AND DISCOVER CARDS FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. VIP SERVICE., THE CONTRACTOR CLUB CARD HELPS OUR ASSOCIATES RECOGNIZE . YOU AS A CLUB MEMBER AND THEY WILL GET YOU IN AND OUT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE." ~ e WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING BUSINESS TOGETHER!!! '~.,. Ik I e Exclusive savings for ~ Contractor Credit Card holders! ';ave even bigger money at ~ \vhen you carry a Contractor Credit ~ard. As a card holder, you'll iUtomatiCally be enrolled into the r~ Contractor Club and er\ioy in-store savings. You'll get free delivery on qualifying !Jurchases, direct access to the outside yard, free estimates, and many other i~ Contractor Club benefits. Earn money each time yon use your card ;ontractor Credit Card holders earn Joints throughout the year that are lpplied to a 1% rebate on purchases. rhat means if you spend $40,000 on lob materials at ~, you'll :~am a $400 merchandise credit check :oward your next ~ purchase. ,jet the all.in-one power tool ror trade professionals. '\pply today for a ~ Contractor Credit Card. Contractor Cfedit Card ~23~ 51. 16 ~23~ '61. Preferre<l Custo.." .......~ .......-- _ artS .,~ Tired oflmying for job , ~ materials up front? f ' ....~ '. 1 ~f the ~-in~ne power tool to cover~d track-all '\."'" your expenses ! I ~ is proud to announce a ", credit card juSt for trade professionals. Get a ~ Contnl<1tor Credit \. It. ~d ~or your business.. . for the times wliemyou're paying out-of-pocket for mate~~~:;1Yh~n you warit to keep " Your O\'M'credit linfopen....when . .... ....' ~ I 1''>> . .' '. .... . you're. ti}1ng to sav m?I!~;...3.t. '~. .ryt~' 1"" i.! --"-'1f]l'project. ~ ~t_1,1 J , ...tI'oJ,,: !I"~:(~;- _ ~_,~~.~-. .,,(. - .~: ". . Itr . . '. ." ,. /,.. j '. ;'..' ,,~kat th*. .. ' d,Jlt....CO.Il m. e' >i.".:~.;,J ~g a . .. c~Ii;'~ \C~Card' 1Jj =. " ~>i.:" : '. :.;.~" ~, '.'i.i.' . \ '. ~,i.c' . R. ' > ",:1 ~:'.~, ':~-, \'" ,Co" "ii.i1..'Jf [tYOtlpay n()8.Im , ' -....'f'!.. 4, e 1111111 ..J~ I! o ~c;; tlJ a. lil l2 Wd W z ~ a:!:: 0 ::. <{ a: >- en ~ ~ en ~ W....M:l Z~ ;;j - ~ ~ en u ~ ::) lii ~ m ~ f( ~ ~~ ~~ uQ ~~ U)U 3~ ~ ~~ 8 ~~ ~ ~o @ u~~ U)....J:: Ini e .i[:i;$t{;.":;;.;~".;;;......?;i-';(~iftrj~~\]:"j,;u.t'~'.)...!.;'3'\::,:" '?:The all.tn.onep' ower tool '~,.(4!),~~!W-!~::,>!1'~; ~.. ~'~"" ... .1(- ~ I):t'~'~%":r.f. .'i':r\f':~(~:';''''(i.IOt;:, '~2P~a!;lg!'~':>.:i:;; ,_t'l/,',;"'.:,'...,.,,-,,,N'j..;:,. MEW,t;w~Ui.ii.'\Ul1~:".'a.-t!,;i~,~..l"""; _,,-',,- ".','" Contractor Credit Card 1234 5678 1234 9876 Preferred Customer -~ SInce 6/'5 -1l1rooQl 1/'7 Introducing the card that's custom-built for contractors · 1 % rebate on purchases . Credit lines up to $25,000 · No annual fee · Automatic ~ Contractor Club Membership · Separate line of credit for your business , IIHr;: l::l ( ! ( ; <.Jo r r;: IYIENHRD5 HDV .., <.". fO 316125538105 P.03/03 ", . Gelden Valley, :MN November, 1996 Customer Count These are daily store records for the lBoath. I SWIlIIIarized the daily totals. Dm 1 2, 764 2 Sat. 3,909 3 Sun. 3,246 4 2,623 5 2,500 6 2,542 7 2,451 8 2,501 9 Sat. 3,613 10 Sun. 2,990 e 11 2.971 (Veterans Day) 12 2.565 13 2.560 14 2,747 15 1,959 16 Sat. 3,563 17 Sun. 3,089 18 2,752 19 2,655 20 2,015 21 2.368 22 2,633 23 Sat. 3,323 24 Sun. 2,590 25 2,847 26 2,550 27 2,853 28 Closed - Thanksgiving 29 3,514 30 Sat. 3,384 82,077 -:- 29 = 2,830 e ** TOTAL PAGE.003 ** ,'iAR (,:;j ( .?; 05 r K ijENARDS HJ..IV IV 815125838.08 P.02/03 e Golden Valley, MN Customer Counts 1995 Noveml>ec 4 3262 December 2 3415 . 1996 January ~ 2422 February 3 2388 March 2 2487 April 6 2968 May 4 3524 June 1 3561 July 6 2646 August 3 2841 September 7 3195 October 5 3455 e e April 4, 1997 City of Golden Valley Attn: Mark Grimes 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 RECEIVED APR 0 7 1997 BY:_ Dear Mr. Grimes: Enclosed are ten (10) copes of a revised site plan that Menards is submitting for approval with Menard's PUD application. This plan has two changes from the previous version. One is the removal of parking stalls near the west entrance to allow for easier and safer traffic flow. The second is the addition of a 14 foot screening structure along the entire length of the north side of the site. This screening was added in response to public comment at the March 10 Planning Commission meeting to screen from view the activities in Menards "yard" area. If you have any further questions or concerns my direct phone number is (715) 876-2310. Patrick H "gan Corporate Counsel Menard, Inc. PHlsw Enclosures A'777 Ul:~IADn nDI\ll: l:AII "I AIDl: \All ~A"7n" n"l'l~ Tl:1 l:DUnl.ll: '"7. ~\ 0"7" ~n.. l:AV. "7.~ 0"7" ~nn. BENSHOOF & RSSOC. INC. TEL No. 612 832 9564 Rpr 03,97 9:38 P.02 ~ BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANe. SUITe 500 / eDINA, MN 55439/ (612) 632-9858/ FAX (612) 832-9564 e e April 3, 1997 REFER 10 FILE: 96-86 Mr. Patrick Harrigan Menard, Inc. 4777 Menard Drive Eau Claire, WI 54703-9625 RE: Review of Parking Supply for Revised Golden Valley Site Plan Dear Patrick: We have reviewed the parking supply indicated in the latest site plan for your Golden Valley store. This review focused on two points: 1) the number of parking spaces. provided in this recent plan as compared to the previous plan and 2) the parking demand expected at the site upon termination of the MGM Liquor lease. The previous plan you submined to the City of Golden Valley indicated a parking supply of366 parking spaces. Your revised site plan now indicates 434 parking spaces. This is. an increase of68 parking spaces. The revised site plan indicates that 71 of the 434 parking spaces will be located in the yard area and designated as contractor/commercial parking.spaces. The remaining 363 parking spaces outside of the yard area will be available to all customers. The provision of the contractor/commercial parking spaces in the yard area will increase the total available parking supply. Currently, MGM Liquor leases 8,000 sq. ft. offIoor area. This lease will expire in November, 2001, at which time it is understood that the MGM store will close and the Menard's store will expand into this space. With this expansion, the total size of the Menard's store would be 131,352 sq. ft. As we reported in our me.morandum of January 14, ] 997, the peak parking demand rate we observed for Menard's on Saturday, December 7, 1996, was 2.59 vehicles per 1000 sq. ft. Applying this rate, we estimate that the peak parking demand for the level of business activity observed on December 7, 1996, will be 340 vehicles after Menard's expands into the existing MGM space. As we explained in our memorandum, dated January 14, parking inefficiencies (due to such factors as snow storage and vehicles occupying two parking spaces) typically result in an effective parking supply that is ten percent less than the actual number of parking spaces provided. Applying a ten percent reduction to the number of parking spaces provided in the revised site plan results in an effective supply of 64 contractor/commercial parking spaces in the yard and 327 parking spaces outside of the yard. This effective supply is adequate to accommodate the,expected peak demand of340 vehicles for the BENSHOOF & ASSOC. INC. TEL No. Mr. Patrick Harrigan 612 832 9564 Apr 03,9? 9:38 P.03 .2. April 3, 1997 level of business activity observed on December 7, 1996, after Menard's expands into the existing MGM space, provided that at least 13 vehicles but not more than 64 vehicles park in the contractor/commercial parking spaces. Sincerely, BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1: A. Benshoof . e e March 13, 1997 City of Golden Valley Attn: Mark Grimes 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes: As a follow up to our conversation on March 13, 1997 I am confirming Menards position in regard to Menard's PUD application and the MGM Liquor Warehouse issue. Menards is agreeable to a provision in the PUD ordinance which provides for the termination of the MGM operation on this site upon the expiration of the current term of MGM's lease. That term will expire on November 30, 2001. Enclosed is a copy of MGM's notice to renew its lease until that date. As I understand the situation, the PUD covering this site will continue in effect after this date except for MGM's operation. I will forward to you a report from Jim Benshoof on Menard's current site plan, with parking in the yard area, as soon as I receive that report. Jim currently has the revised plan in his possession. Please contact me with any other unresolved issues involved with this application so that they can be resolved. If you have any further questions or concerns my direct phone number is (715) 876-2310. Sincerely, /) ~. -..0~ /~UJ r;;;~j Patrick Harrig7 Corporate Counsel Menard, Inc. PH/sw Enclosures A7T7 UCMADn nDI\lC. CAli ('I AIDC \AII I::A'7n"_N:1)1:: TE:l l:DUnl.ll: 1'711::\ D'7l:! I::n11 l:A V. '711::.D'7l:! I::nn1 e e e 411' MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 10, 1997 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Staff comments on March 7, 1997 letter received from Menard, Inc. Patrick Harrigan, Corporate Counsel for Menard, Inc., has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission commenting on the staff report that I prepared. I would like to address each of the issues in his letter: 1. Mr. Harrigan was disappointed that I reported that the present use of the property was "illegal". Even though the Menard store has existed in this location for 15-1/2 years, this does not make the use legal or conforming if it does not fully meet the Zoning Code requirements. There is a retail operation (MGM) that exists on the site that does not conform to the Zoning Code. 2. The City Attorney and I have met with representatives from Menard, Inc. over the past two years to resolve the issue of nonconforming uses on the site. The approach that was agreed upon by Menard, Inc. and the City staff is that Menard could apply for a PUD to permit two uses on one parcel. These two uses are the lumber/building material business and the retail liquor store. The expansion of the Menard store was not a part of the discussion until just prior to the application for the PUD was made. Menard agreed to a condition in the PUD that would end the use of the MGM space for retail purposes after the term of the lease to MGM ended (five years). This space would then be converted to Menard space. Without this condition to the PUD, the staff would not accept a PUD application for this site. 3. The staff agrees that the building expansion proposed is 26,687 sq.ft. The approximate 36,000 sq.ft. figure comes from adding the 26,687 sq.ft. with the additional 9,400 sq.ft. from the west half of the MGM space (former Zeos space). The overall size of the existing building, with 26,687 sq.ft. addition, is about 123,000 sq.ft. ... '-' 4. Menard is concerned about how the City first approved the MGM operation at this location. They are probably correct that Menard represented to the City that MGM was a warehouse type operation. It has proven differently over the past 15 years. No matter how long MGM has operated at this site, it remains a nonconforming use. As stated before, staff has been working with Menard to try to eliminate the retail uses at the site, so far unsuccessfully. 5. Despite the parking study done for Menard and the City by a traffic and parking consultant chosen by Menard, Menard asserts that less than 300 spaces are needed for this building. The parking consultant states that 2.6 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area is needed for the Menard store. Menard Inc. believes that the parking requirement should be only 2 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. (warehouse requirement in Industrial zoning district). 6. Menard Inc. included daily customer counts to show the variations in customers using the store on the first Saturday of each month. I would like to know if those are just people who purchased items or all people entering the store? 7. The City is concerned about parking occurring on-street due to an overflow from the Menard's lot. My sources (including other City employees that use the store regularly) indicated a parking problem that sometimes runs over into the street. 8. Mr. Harrigan states in the letter that the PUD application would allow the site to be used both by a Menard store and a retail user. This is a change from the arrangement that was agreed upon by both Menard and City staff. The City staff would not recommend the use of a PUD in this circumstance unless eliminating the MGM retail space was made a part of the PUD. 9. The City has received a review of the Benshoof study by SEH engineer GI~n Van Wormer It is attached for your review. Please note that Mr. Van Wormer is very familiar with the area. His firm recently completed the 1-394 corridor study for the City of Golden Valley. e e Attachments: Menard Inc. letter dated March 7,1997 SEH letter dated March 1 a, 1997 e 2 MRR' 7'S7 16:14 FR MENRRDS ADV .~ TO S16125S38HlS P.l!l2/l!l3 March 7, 1997 ... Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley. MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes: We have reviewed your staff report memo to the Golden Valley Planning Commission in regard to Menard's pun" application and believe it is necessary to clarify a few of the issues you have raised. We are disappointed that you have reported to the Conunission that the present use of the property is "illegal". The fact is that we have continuously operated on the property, with multiple users, for over 15% years and the City has never staned any legal proceedings challenging such uses. To suggest that we have violated laws is incorrect and unfairly represents to the planning commission that we need to cure" some pending violation. When we first approached the City and advised staff about our expansion proposal, staff suggested that a PUD procedure would be the best format to present our proposal. We agreed to the PUD format as an accomodation to the City. - The actual size of proposed building expansion would be 26,687 square feet, a figure that comes from 10,600 and 16,087 sq. ft. additions to the existing structure. All other areas are currently existing structures. In response to your uncertainty as to MGM Liquor Warehouse's origin, MGM Liquor Warehouse has leased space from Menards since October of 1981, just a month after Menard's began operation on this site in September of 1981. MGM Liquor Warehosue has continuously operated at this location for over 15% years. When MGM first opened at this location, they apparently represented to the City that they are a "warehouse" type operation as is reflected in MOM's advertising and signage throughout the Twin Cities. In a letter from you to a representative of MGM dated November 25, 1996, you stated that "The City Staff previously was told that these were '~ehouse" or "showroom" type uses that were permitted in the Industrial Zone District". This may be the reason that MGM was originally permitted to operate at this location. ,j-iHi\. I' .:;;~ .0; A. ~ r ~ j",Ei'iHKLiS ;.-,.0v ;~J ~l6.~~5J6lw3 The parking requirements for this site should reflect the realities of both Menards operation and the zoning requirements of the City of Golden Valley for warehouses. First, Menards advenises on the front of its store that it is "Minnesota's Do-It-Yourself Discount Warehouse" and much of our inventory consists of large building material items such as cabinets, trusses, windows, doors, stone, block and carpeting that are customarily merchandised in warehouses. Second, the City of Golden Valley admittedly allows an operation such as Menards within an Industrial Zone. Therefore, when calculating the number of parking stalls required for this site, the entire area ofMenards facility should be considered warehouse space. Under that calculation, the parking requirement on this site is under 300 stalls even with any proposed expansion, using your stated requirement of one space for every 500 sq. ft. of warehouse space. To further clarify the parking study submitted with Menard's application, I have enclosed a compilation of our actual customer counts for the first Saturday of each month over the course of one year at this facility to demonstrate the yearly variation in business demand. These results were sent to Benshoof and Associates and were used in Benshoof's statistical analysis. In regard to your concerns about parking occuning on streets adjacent to this site, we believe most of this parking is attributable to neighbors such as the church to the north which holds regular music festivals that draw large numbers of people or the Burger King and other restaurants. to the east and west of Menards site. During events at the church organization, according to local Menards representatives, cars are parked not only on adjacent city streets, but also in private parking lots including Menards Finally, we need to remind you that Menard's PUD application submission is intended to be for a continuous PUD status relating to and running with the land and is not intended to be limited to the duration of any agreement between Menards and MGM or any other party. Please forward these clarifications to the Golden Valley Planning Commission. Please contact myself or Bob Corey if you have any questions. JY' Patrick Hanigan Corporate Counsel Menard, Inc. PHlsw P.l:)3~DJ e e e ~J/10/97 MON 11:1J fAX 612 490 2150 SEH ~~~ GOLDEN VALLEY @002 e ;5&1 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, 200 SEH CENTER. ST. PAUL. MN 55110 612490-2000 800 325.2055 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION March 10, 1997 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota Menards Store Expansion Parking Study SEH No. A-GOLDV950 1.00 Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Dear Mark: We'verhad an opportunity to review the parking study prepared for the expansion of the Menards Slore in Golden Valley. The parking study was based on a survey done by Benshoof and Associates. e The parking survey by Benshoof was done on Saturday, December 7, 1996. It was a pre-Christmas shopping day and probably represents higher than average Saturday parking demand. We anticipate the highest demand at a building goods Store occurs from April through July. If additional information is needed, Menards could provide a weekly or monthly swnmary of percent of annual sales. The time oithe study was 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., which is also probably a reasonable time to anticipate some of the higher parking demands during a Saturday. The survey method was to count the number of spaces in use at specific times. This is an acceptable method and does provide reasonable information. They also utilized acceptable methods to determine the number of parking spaces associated with the liquor store. The major question of the City staff was their observations that the parking lot appears full at Menarcls on Saturdays. The survey which was done by Benshoof indicated 317 total parking spaces with 187 in front of Menards. The percent full at Menards ranged from 77 to 86 during the survey. Normally a lot which has customers seeking spaces throughout the area can be considered full when there are still 5 percent of the spaces remaining. Thus, if there also is an improper use of some of the spaces, 86 percent of the spaces in use could almost appear as a full lot. We have tried to check the rate for parking for a lumber yard or building supply store. The existing literature provides little information for a store of the size of Menards. Discount stores of the same e SHORT ELI.IOTT HeNDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS. MN ST. Cl.OUD. MN CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI MADISON. WI LAKE COUNTY, IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPI.OYeR Mr. Mark Grimes March 10, 1997 Page No.2 size have a rate generally of 3.5 to 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The maximum observed at Menards was slightly above 2.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. e The parking study indicated that if parking supply was adequate for the 85th highest percentile event, that it could be deemed adequate. We disagree with this assumption since it could mean that 54 days per year would not have adequate parking. If a business had a high Saturday use, all Saturdays would be above the 85th percentile. However, this 85th percentile was again not used and instead the typical busy Saturday, as measured on December 7, was used. We believe that the peak parking demand days should be determined and parking should be adequate for most of those days. Thus, there should be a comparison of Saturdays between several months when parking may be at a high demand, and a determination made of how many spaces would be needed for those Saturdays. Discount stores, major food retailers, and shopping centers generally try to provide adequate parking for peak: days. When peak parking demands may exceed supplies, usually the retailers seek to find some alternate parking or provide off-area parking for their employees. Other considerations in reviewing the parking supply and demand for Menards can also be considered. Double parking usually occurs in the summer when there are larger vehicles or contractors or trailers hauled by individuals in the lot. Inefficient parking occurs in the winter when space markings are not visible. This loss is generally one space per aisle. Thus the assumptions of 10 percent loss of parking, combined with the concept of full at 90 percent utilization, is probably It valid. The second consideration is whether the additional 36,000 feet to be added to Menards will draw traffic in the same volume proportion as the initia187,000 square feet. We feel that it will draw a slightly lower rate. Oftentimes, a point is made that parking is a self-contained problem and that the business from an economic standpoint will provide adequate parking. This can be forced back to the propeny owner by prohibiting on-street parking. However, the lack of adequate parking often spills over into an adjacent lot and becomes a City problem. Richfield has had an excellent example of this for several years. We would suggest that Menards be contacted for transaction or customer numbers or some type of indication of when the busiest periods of the year are. This would then provide the ability to use the December 7 information as a reference point. We also will do some observations and counts at other Menards stores, Knox Lumber Yards, and Fleet Fann Stores. This will be done on our own time as part of our information gathering process. e 'UJ/10/97 MON 11:1J FAX 612 490 2150 . e e :'EH ........ GOLDEN VALLEY @004 Mr. Mark Grimes March 10, 1997 Page No.3 If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely. Glen Van Wormer, P.E. Manager, Transportation Depanment sab P:\PROJECTS\COLOV\95UIIl.Eili1!RSICIlIMES,lIf 10 e e e MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 6, 1997 Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Preliminary Design Plan Review for Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 75 -- 6800 Wayzata Boulevard -- Menard, Inc., Applicant Menards has requested a PUD in order that they may legally have two uses on their property at 6800 Wayzata Blvd. This PUD request includes the expansion of the Menard's space by approximately 36,000 sq.ft. Total building area on the site would be 123,000 sq.ft. This includes an 8,000 sq.ft. MGM retail store. The property is designated on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map as Industrial and zoned Industrial. The current use of the property as a lumber yard is considered a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District. The second use of the property is the MGM Liquor store. This use is not permitted in the Industrial District. Over fifteen years ago Menards purchased the property from a car dealership. After the purchase, Menards sublet portions of the building to two other businesses. The first business to co-locate in the Menards building was COMB Company. They leased the front west part of the building where the lighting section is now located in Menards. The City permitted this use because it was told by COMB and Menards that COMB was a catalog/warehouse type business which was consistent with the Industrial Zoning District. (In the late 1980's the COMB store stopped operating and Menards expanded into that space.) Sometime later, MGM Liquor moved into the east portion of the front of the store (about 17,000 sq.ft. in total). I have not been able to determine the reasoning used to permit a retail use in the Menards building. MGM reduced the size of their store several years ago and sublet the west portion of their store to other retail businesses. These businesses have included a computer store and patio furniture store. Since the computer store (Zeo's) closed, City staff has informed Menards and MGM that that space cannot be used for retail space. Staff and the City Attorney have met with Menards to determine a way to eliminate the illegal retail use (MGM) at this location. The suggested approached that has been discussed is that Menards would apply for a PUD that would permit the use of the Menards site for both a lumber yard and retail use as a liquor store. The liquor store would be allowed in this location for the period of their current lease (5 yrs.). After that time, the MGM portion of the site would be eliminated and the space would convert to Menards' space. The west portion of the MGM space (former Zeo's space) will become additional space for Menards if the PUD is approved. The total MGM vacant space is currently about 9,000 sq.ft. ~ Menards began operation in 1981. A significant variance for parking was necessary in order for it to operate. In the early 1980's, the code required 574 spaces for the Menard's building. Menards received a variance to allow the operation with 271 spaces or a variance of 303 spaces. The breakdown for parking is as follows according to the 1981 variance. e UB Square Footage Parking Ratio Required Number of Spaces Required by Code Warehouse 85,511 1 space for every 212 400 sq.ft. Retail 26,808 1 space for every 75 355 sq.ft. Office 2,296 1 space for every 9 250 sq.ft. The parking requirement in the Zoning Code is different today than it was in 1981. The current parking requirement is one space for each 150 sq.ft. of retail space, one space for each 250 sq.ft. of office space and one space for every 500 sq.ft. of warehouse space. Based on today's requirement, the parking requirement for the proposed 123,000 sq.ft., Menard/MGM is about 800 parking spaces. This is based on the requirement of one space for 150 sq.ft. of retail space with some limited office space. The building plan shows no warehouse space. In order to evaluate the demand for parking, for the expanded Menards, staff requested that Menard submit the parking study to determine the amount of parking needed if Menards is expanded. This study was prepared by Benshoof & Associates, a transportation engineering firm. The Benshoof report indicated that there are currently 317 spaces on the site serving Menards and MGM. The proposed changes to Menards would include an addition of about 36,000 sq.ft. of retail area to Menards, while maintaining the 8,000 sq.ft. liquor store. According to the Benshoof study, about 60 additional parking spaces will be added to the site along the east side of the building to bring the total parking available to 379. Staff carefully counted the parking spaces on the site plan submitted by Menards. This plan indicates 366 spaces or 13 fewer parking spaces than the plan used for the Benshoof report. Staff is assuming the submitted site plan is the correct. The Benshoof study indicates that with the added 36,000 sq.ft. of retail space, and 379 parking spaces, the "site probably can provide sufficient parking spaces to meet the needs for your proposed store expansion." Even though Menards has provided this study, staff is concerned about the adequacy of parking for several reasons. First, the study used Saturday, December 7, 1996 as the day when traffic counts were taken. Staff is not convinced that early December is the busiest time for Menards. Because it is a building materials or lumber yard, the busiest period would be in the Spring. Second, staff has spoken to numerous people that regularly use Menards on the weekends and they state that there is a current parking shortage during busy times. Parking now occurs on the street (Wayzata Blvd. and Hampshire) with the existing store and 9,000 sq.ft. vacant space next to MGM. Third, the number of parking e e 2 e e e spaces assumed by Benshoof is 379, while the site plan indicates 366. Assuming there are only 366 spaces, there are fewer spaces than are needed to meet the parking demand of 331 spaces for the new store as recommended by Benshoof. (Benshoof correctly assumes a 10% reduction in spaces due to parking inefficiencies. Ten percent of 366 spaces is 36 spaces. The total space available is 366 spaces minus the 36 spaces [10% parking inefficiency] or 330 spaces. The Benshoof report indicates that the expected peak parking demand is 331 vehicles.) City staff have asked for an opinion from SEH Engineers regarding the Benshoof study. The City has not yet received their written opinion. SEH's initial reaction was that the number of spaces provided will not be adequate to meet the peak shopping days in the spring and summer. Glen VanWormer of SEH told me over the phone after reviewing the Benshoof study that he is concerned about designing this parking lot to accommodate the 85th percentile event. The 85th percentile event is the day for which business activity exceeds the business activity of 85% of all days of the year. Benshoof states that because Dec. 7th was a Saturday during the busy Christmas season, it was assumed that that day represented the expected 85th percentile event. Adjusting for the additional 36,000 sq. ft. planned for the new Menard's store, a total of 331 spaces would be needed according to Benshoof. The problem that Mr. VanWormer and the staff have with this analysis is that on 15% of the business days of the year there will not be enough parking. Therefore on about 54 days per year (assuming 360 business days), there will not be adequate parking. The assumption is that this will primarily occur on Saturday and Sunday in the spring and summer. If enough parking is not provided, this will become a City problem because cars will park on the street. Staff will be receiving a letter from Mr. VanWormer regarding the Benshoof study the week of March 10, 1997. Recommended Action Staff is recommending that this matter be tabled until Menards can show that there is adequate parking to handle the projected peak parking demand, not just the 85th percentile business day. The staff sees this as the most important matter with this PUD application. Without additional parking, the staff would not be able to recommend that the general concept of development works on this site. If Menards would choose to eliminate the 36,000 sq. ft. building addition to the building, staff could recommend that the review or the PUD continue because the building uses would remain the same and, therefore, the parking would continue under the same variance that was approved in 1981. Attachments: Location Map Benshoof Parking Study Oversized Plans 3 ":'0/ ,'" . . : . .L. .');..j r;.. I\\/E :1:' ~: a '"'v . . .::- '. eo 1..( 19 ... <:. " ~ ~ .. ~z: :?3 II, -I. . ''''....,1.11 ). " lOt ~ ~~ __'!L f 'I'::: ... ,o.~ -; .':ll (j') '., .;, ~ .. . ., e . <> ~I' [ i!!, . " OJ''' ~.. : .Q " ~ ~, ~It ~... ... II' j "'---_ .~.., t _2~~ ROAD ~ :- ~ COLONIAL ,,~.Z! f:l6- '" ... ... ..I' ~. c;;;:. r ' --. --.;; ,~--- - ~ '\ CJ: :D ~=-~, ... .... '" ... 't' -90 <=>,...-. ~ · ~O ~ ... .... ... :- " ~I"I on 2 ..... - s\'f..e se6. 4( ~'foVo AI 1(#,),'6"$ ',,(1.4' ""8.77 .s'J' 810 S"'.I9'J,'t" .. 't- .. '4B%.... .~AVE. !f .:.~ I~.!L'._ . ..1l'l5'r ,if': :J \- I . .:: . .-- --'-. -.'.'0.. s . ------ - .-, p , I .. oj ~ 0; '. It) I.~ .:' I ... :'1 " ... _0 ... .. '" ..o.JI .. '" .... ... ... ~ ~ . .. ~ " ., .. o ... ,.,... ur- - ::I~ .. - "-' J ,~ .i; r' "- --.--.. PART LAtJ: at: R[GISTfRED I SURVEY NO ti~e I'.. ... .. "J ~Io.. ~ Cl r,. ~4 l() C " .... ..,~ 11'J ?!...-.J . ~ (ET () Cr., . Sl \Q ~ .:c,..' l r" 'I- ;~ I I I R' " I I ~. ... '<{ '111/ ~I 12 ...1 /75 I<{ , I- (/) Y' I::> I ,\ , '*t \.. ". - Ig :~ I c' " ,S~~_ _ ~ _ ';~:'I-:" .....1 .;.!......'" .._ __. , 'Z.," 14" ., H' " ,_ _ .. .." , ~ . ' . II -" - ,-. 5' Sol, ~ I "'_':J_ -,.- "4' ..f' T( )." ", , i~'.oL __ '05"- . ~ - -- '~d Bear 58~'4'~_- : q. 58 , - _'. ->.--ic,-. : .' - --.- VII l" _~ , - .~ -' ( ~ L ~ \ '~\ /7 ", ,. 00 .,"" o luj l~ I , I .. o .~ ~ " ~ I 4()() i __t.. ._.._ ,_.._ .... ') ~ ,. ... .... ... STREET el. '-Sl N .. Q .... . H:"' !!TD . . Q SB;4J'IS'E .. U"3~ , 1'7,3~ I 10'>05 . ::'tl Hcl ..... '" q CI .~ .... 2 . . . ~ 6980 6950 t L" ~ r J. ,.. 4,,' : ;), ,. J~' T,1140SS: EO S ' ",;), I~; , " , :: ~ : I I : , ~ t:: " .l, . 17' 51 ~ S . . So 0 L,. ""1& if BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500/ EDINA, MN 55439 / (612) 832-9858/ FAX (612) 832-9564 e e January 14, 1997 ~~ \,'0 ~~~ REFER TO FILE: 96-86 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Harrigan, ~nard, Inc. '1"lS 0 .1/ James A. Benshoof and Peter A. Hultgren I 'I Parking Study for Golden Valley Menard's Store FROM: RE: PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to assist Menard's and the City of Golden Valley in considering Menard's desire to expand and improve its Golden Valley store. Specifically, issues concerning parking supply and demand at this store are addressed in this memorandwn.. The results of a parking survey at the existing store are presented, followed by the estimated parking demands for the proposed expanded store. The memorandum concludes with a determination of the adequacy of the proposed parking supply for the expanded store. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing Menard's store has a total gross floor area of 87,272 sq. ft. Adjoining this store are a 9,393 sq. ft. vacant store and an 8,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Based on scale site drawings provided by Menard's and on-site observations by Benshoof & Associates staf( there are currently 317 parking spaces available for Menard's and liquor store customers. Benshoof staff conducted a parking survey on Saturday, December 7, 1996. The survey was conducted during the busiest period of the day, from 11:00 am to 3:30 p.m For the purpos~ of this survey, the lot area surrounding the stores was divided into four sub-areas for surveillance as shown in Figure 1. These four sub-areas consist of the yard area north of the Menard's store, the joint Menard's and MGM Liquor parking in the southeast comer of the parking lot, the Christmas tree sales area in the center of the parking lot, and the remaining portion of the parking lot which was for Menard's customers. Two types of data were collected each half-hour: the total number of vehicles parked in each sub-area and the number r r-------------- "\ -- I _________~_~______ J I -------- I I -. m j \ ,II I'! : I Ii I I ; I I - i Ii - I. I ~ I II I J I I R '''CTOfP( -, ...lItH::Ust II I 11 . I ~-L~ YARD I -------~:~~~~-~~---------- MENARD, INC. , (Xi BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. V TRANSPORTATlONENBINEERSANDPLAHHERS 7~~-- r'~-~"--r~"~-rrT~~-rrl,~-r "".,I.'!""7""'" 11'1 .11 '~o:r."'1 .1"'" "1-"" "..... /..'1-'" 11"'1 '1'1 I II, t'lllllll ~J=~~~JJ:~~~~=:h!!Jb~~!JJ:~~l! 111 '\:------------------------- I-T-~;p-----..--F-~~-: I wc;.o UOl/C. : . t_:..:.:-=- , I I , I : I~ I I I I , I I I I I , -~ H....p$Hft[ A\I(lloU( f c. C ANOP' _ZS=_- . lIClf.lIIOS '''oQ.C;('-1 ~I I &~~~~~~ ~~ 1 JOINT PARKING :=3 \ ~~'\~~~~~ 1\ 1\ I I I w~~~ ID \ ~~~~~ .1 ~~~~~~~ 1:gJ:- flnTlfI I I I I J MARKET lI1'AEET N .... o 150' PARKING STUDY FOR GOLDEN VALLEY STORE FIGURE 1 PARKING SURVEY SUB-AREAS Mr. Patrick Harrigan -3- January 14, 1997 . of customers parked in the joint parking sub-area entering the Menard's store and entering the liquor store. Table 1 presents the first set of data collected. For each sub-area, the number of vehicles parked by time of day is presented followed by the sub-area's parking supply. TABLE 1 Sub-Area Parking Demands by Time of Day and Parking Supply Number ofVehicJes Parked Start of Joint Menard's Half-Hour Yard Parkin Tree Sales Parkin Total 11:00 am 4 82 0 145 231 11:30 am. 9 71 0 148 228 12 noon 8 72 0 150 230 12:30 .m. 7 84 0 154 245 1:00 6 79 0 161 246 1:30 14 67 0 157 238 2:00 10 73 0 151 234 2:30 6 89 0 144 239 3:00 10 82 0 153 245 e n.a 106 24 187 317 Customers who parked their vehicles in the joint parking sub-area were observed as they left their vehicles and entered either Menard's or MGM Liquor. The number entering each store. was recorded by time of day. Table 2 presents this second set of data TABLE 2 Number of Joint Parking Customers Entering Menard's and MGM Liquor "e Customers Entering Customers Entering MGM Start of Half-Hour Menard's Liquor 11:00 am 35 21 11:30 am 43 16 12:00 noon 62 16 12:30 D.m. 72 24 1 :00 D.m. 53 24 1 :30 D.m 56 31 2:00 D.m 60 33 2:30 D.m 48 44 3 :00 p.m. 46 41 Mr. Patrick Harrigan -4- January 14, 1997 . As can be seen from Table 1, the total parking demand is nearly constant throughout the survey period. The total parking demand peaks between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. While observing customers entering the two stores, we noted that the number of customers per vehicle was higher for Menard's than for MGM Liquor. Typically there were two or three Menard's customers per vehicle and one or two liquor store customers per vehicle. Applying an average of 1. 5 liquor store customers per vehicle and assuming the presence of four liquor store employee vehicles in the joint parking sub-area, we estimated the total number of parked vehicles each half-hour associated with Menard's and with MGM Liquor. A parking demand rate for the Menard's store was calculated by dividing the number of Menard's vehicles by the gross floor area of the store. Table 3 shows these estimates. The number of parked vehicles for the Menard's store includes the parked vehicles observed in the yard area TABLE 3 Estimated Number of Parked Vehicles for Menard's and MGM Liquor Number of Parked Number of Parked Menard's Parking Start of Half-Hour Vehicles for MGM Vehicles for Demand Rate Liauor Menard's (vehJIOOO sa. ft.) 11:00 am. 18 213 2.44 11:30 am. 15 213 2.44 12 noon 15 215 2.46 12:30 p.m. 20 225 2.58 1:00 p.rn. 20 226 2.59 1:30 p.m. 25 213 2.44 2:00 p.m. 26 208 2.38 2:30 p.m. 33 206 2.36 3:00 p.m. 31 214 2.45 e FUTURE PARKING DEMAND The current store is planned for expansion to a proposed size of 123,352 sq. ft. Multiplying the parking demand rates of Table 3 by the expanded store size yields the expected parking demand for the expanded Menard's store for the first Saturday of December. TIlls expected demand is shown in Table 4, along with the liquor store parking demand and the resulting total parking demand. The typical design standard used for estimating the parking supply required to accommodate a commercial property is the 85th percentile event The 85th percentile event is the day for which business activity exceeds the business activity of 85 percent of all days of the year. According to the customer data provided to us, the first Saturday of December is especially busy in comparison with other days of the year. Therefore, we are confident that the day of our survey reflects busy business activities, and that it is not necessary to apply any daily nor e e e e Mr. Patrick Harrigan -5- January 14, 1997 TABLE 4 Expected Parking Demand for Expanded Menard's Store Number of Parked Number of Parked Start of Half-Hour Vehicles for MGM Vehicles for Total Number of Liquor Menard's Vehicles Parked 1 11:00 am. 18 301 319 11:30 am. 15 301 316 12 noon 15 303 318 12:30 p.rn. 20 318 338 1 :00 p.rn. 20 319 339 1:30 p.rn. 25 301 326 2:00 p.rn. 26 294 320 2:30 p.rn. 33 291 324 3 :00 p.rn. 31 302 333 1 Includes vehicles parked 10 the yard On average, about eight vehicles were parked 10 this area. seasonal adjustment factors to calculate an appropriate parking demand for analysis purposes. The peak parking demand shown in Table 4 closely resembles the expected 85th percentile event The future parking demand for the proposed expanded store peaks at 319 vehicles, with a simultaneous demand of twenty vehicles for MGM Liquor, resulting in a total peak demand of339 vehicles. Our parking survey indicates an average of eight vehicles parked in the yard sub-area, so it is expected that there would be a total peak parking demand of 3 31 vehicles in the parking lot ADEQUACY OF PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY The preliminary site plan for the expanded store as provided by Menard's indicates a parking supply of379 stalls. A ten percent reduction for parking inefficiencies (such as snow storage and double parked vehicles) results in an effective parking supply of341 spaces. This parking supply is slightly greater than the expected peak parking demand in the parking lot of 3 31 vehicles. Given the preceding finding, we conclude that your Golden Valley site probably can provide sufficient parking spaces to meet the needs for your proposed store expansion. An important next step would be development of a detailed site plan that meets the overall objectives of Menard's and the City of Golden Valley. MEMORANDUM e Date: April 10, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment of the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map from an Industrial Use to Semi-Public Facilities; and Rezoning of the Subject Property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) to allow for the Construction of a Boy's Detention Facility for Hennepin County --7155 Madison Avenue West -- Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant e Hennepin County Property Services, acting for the Hennepin County Community Corrections, has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment in order that Hennepin County may construct a new 16-bed boy's detention facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West (southeast corner of Madison Avenue and Nevada Avenue). The site is a corner lot (200 feet by 145 feet) which is about 28,500 sq.ft. in area (.65 acre). The site is now the location of a 16-bed group home that has been on this site since 1975. It has served adolescent girls. The building is currently empty but has been actively on the market for the past year or so. Such a detention facility would be considered a residential facility in the 1-3 district, so a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. The property is zoned Industrial and guided on the Plan Map for Industrial use. The site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that the use of the property, as a group home, would fit in with the area. The building was used for official industrial purposes until that time. Group homes were not a permitted use. At that time, the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow uses in the Industrial district that were not specifically but would be compatible with uses permitted in the Industrial district. This was done by motion of the City Council. It did not require a CUP. Some time after the group home was built, the City Council changed the Zoning Code and did not permit uses other than those specifically outlined in the Code. The group home is now considered a non-conforming use. It may continue as it is today but it cannot be expanded. e The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has been looking for alternative ways to house the growing juvenile offender population, since it was determined by the County Board that the present 87-bed facility at 510 Park Avenue would not be expanded due to high costs. One of the alternative ways is the construction of a small 16-bed facility at the subject site for juvenile boys who do not pose a threat to the community or themselves. 1 e The Planning staff and City Attorney have met to discuss the use of this site as a detention facility. When the County first approached the City in 1996, the idea was to either tear down the existing group home and build a new 16-bed facility or substantially rehabilitate the existing building on the same footprint. Staff and the City Attorney first determined that the use of the building, for a detention facility, was consistent with its current use as a group home if the number of beds remained the same (16 beds). Therefore, the County could use the building as long as the footprint of the building remained the same. Interior and maintenance improvements could be done. The other alternative and the one preferred by the County is to demolish the existing building and start over. The first alternative could be done because it was determined to be consistent with the existing nonconforming use. The second, however, could not be done without a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Code amendment. In either case, there is also a state law that requires that when a public agency opens a public facility in another City, the City Council of the City where the facility is to be opened, has to find that the proposed use is consistent with the Comp Plan and Zoning Code. Prior to the City Council finding, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter. e In anticipation of the above State requirements, the City staff suggested to Hennepin County that they meet with the surrounding property owners in order to get their input on the'proposed use. The County met two or three times with these owners. The property owners realized that the property could be used by the County "as is" and that the former use as an adolescent girls group home caused problems. In fact, Director of Public Safety, Dean Mooney has stated that the former group home caused many police calls, primarily due to runaways. There was also some property damage caused by the runaways. It is Director Mooney's opinion that a secured detention facility would have fewer, if any, problems. In the discussions with the business neighbors, the result of the discussions was that a new detention facility on the site would be preferred over remodeling the existing building. The new building would be better designed from the neighborhood's perspective and provide the County with a new 16-bed state-of-the-art type facility. e At the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting, the City Council met with Hennepin County to discuss their proposed use of the site. The Council directed staff to explore changes to the Zoning Code that would allow the County to build a new building on this site. The Planning staff met with the City Attorney to go over the options. There are few options from a zoning perspective. The staff is recommending that Planning Commission and City Council consider rezoning the property to Institutional (1-3) which would make this type of facility a conditional use. The other alternative would have been to either make group homes/detention centers a conditional use in the Industrial district or go back to the former provision that would allow the City Council to allow certain uses that they believe would be compatible with the uses permitted in the Industrial district. 2 e The Planning and legal staff have given hard thought to this matter. The recommended method to allow for this juvenile detention center is to rezone the property to Institutional (1-3). If a conditional use was permitted for this type of use in the Industrial district, the City would have to consider residential facilities in all areas zoned Industrial. The staff does not believe that residential facilities are appropriate in all Industrial areas. By permitting it as a CUP, it is difficult to not allow such a use, if it meets the standards set in the Code. The staff does not recommend going back to the way the City Council originally allowed the group home. This type of clause in the Code would allow uses that may be entirely inappropriate for the Industrial area without proper notification and hearing from the public. e The rezoning to Institutional does raise certain issues. First, is this the dreaded "spot zoning" issue. In this case, the group home has existed in this location for over 20 years. It is in an area with offices and manufacturing uses. The Industrial neighborhood is well maintained and is desirable industrial/office location. The property is also in an area that is quite a distance from residential uses and schools. Dover Hill is probably the closest housing. It is separated from the site by other industrial uses and a railroad track. Based on staff experience, group homes or detention centers of this size and type are not liked by residential neighborhoods. Because of this unique location and site history, this site for a detention center may work as well as any other location in Golden Valley. Second, when rezoning to 1-3, the other uses that we permitted in that district should also be considered. These permitted uses include rest homes, sanitaria, nursing homes and clinics. Conditional uses include hospitals, out-patient surgical facilities, lodge halls, day care, and residential facilities. Due to the small size of this property, other uses of this property, either permitted by right or as a CUP, would be unlikely. Perhaps a day care facility, small clinic, or residential facility could occur on this site. However, the limited amount of space on the lot for parking and open space make other uses unlikely. Third, the Comprehensive Plan should be considered. In this case, it is recommended that the Comp Plan Map first be amended from Industrial to Semi- Public (Institutional). The Comp Plan description and the Zoning would then be consistent with this change. The issue with "spot zoning" is less problematic. e The issue that the Planning Commission and City Council must decide here is whether it would be in the long term best interest of the City to have this type of use in an Industrial area. Group homes, residential facilities and detention facilities are all needed in the City. With a secured facility, this type of facility may work because the residents (inmates) are not going out into the neighborhood but staying in the facility. With the continued controversy over their location near residences, perhaps locating these institutional uses in the Industrial district would be appropriate and make sense. In the case of this property, it has the history of use as a group home. It would seem to make more sense to allow for a new building that the neighborhood wants rather than trying to retrofit an existing building. 3 . With the rezoning, Hennepin County has agreed to a set of restrictive covenants that State that the building would be limited to a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. A draft copy of those covenants is attached. These covenants will have to be modified to indicate that it is a conditional use in the Institutional (1-3) zoning district and that the County would commit to only using the building as a 16-bed detention facility without agreement by the City. I am attaching several reports and other information that have been gathered on this matter for the past several months. Some of this information is helpful for background on this subject. Recommended Action This is a difficult zoning and planning issue. Hennepin County will build the detention center at this location in either a substantially remodeled facility or a new facility. The preference of the neighbors in the area is that the existing building be torn down and replaced with a new building. Staff also believe that a new building would be preferable because it will be better designed for the site. Because it is a locked facility, the use will be more compatible with the area. e In order to construct a new building, there would need to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities and a rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). If these issues go forward, a CUP would have to be issued for the site to be used as a residential facility. The County has agreed to the use of the property only under conditions found in restrictive covenants stating it would be a 16-bed facility. Overall, the staff recommends amending the Plan Map and Zoning Map. In this specific instance, staff believe that this location for a 16-bed detention facility would not have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood and essentially continue its existing status. With the CUP, the City can apply other conditions they believe are necessary prior to issuance of the CUP. MWG:mkd Attachments: Location Map Survey Site Plan Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Other materials attached . 4 J I I I I I I N '1/2 SEe. 29, 7. 200 0 200 4 1_. sea Ie fee ...... :-- ,'., ,) (lOr ; ; q .. r.J ") i ::~ ==-- \....: (- ......, :. J 1.....1 i -, . t._ . ,. e ISO tfu I ---__L.___....____ ~~il ..... ~VI .1 ~"'.;.."<{:'. NEW HO E ~~ ~ . so.~ I "':'1.....: ':"':" ;1' 1,4.'U." -::.:!lI04.\: .~ MEDICINE LAKE ROAD '; I -Zfoo_ ~ ~I.. : (\ - .... _,__ __ _____... . ~<!.r 7155 'I"~ ~ ,.~ ;:~::: In:i4;1;', ~;:w ;;:~. m",(, J ---;:-:;~. ,,, .. f~: ;0 I ,0 - ?;~.l 13 It) "t I ~~!:. <<(j .......... I ;;-1 -- _______!!.r!l__ ~ I I 53'-S I \ ~l~ _ . ~ . ~...... ... I t _ I~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ si _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ s I I~O I .. ...~ lQ~ ~ ~ :r~~. lO.:::~ ' ~..... ~ I ~~~ \. ~=t, ~...-. ~~~ ~ . CIa -to. c;:) ~ c:) or:. ~ "-:;: : i 'e l I II I, 0 ~~ ~ _- ~~o ,'~ /0'0 - r -'00 ~ i I~ k 16. ~ ~ 15 I. .,.,S~'1il . tIll." I ~. M." ,7/50 i ..:r,l!SO,o 100 ~ Q :. - ;' MADISON- ...., ~7 ~~ ,. .. ! ! o .. .... Wed 4"-,, I I 10 I -l ) . . I . f- - - - - - '" - _~rJL J _ _ _ _ _ ___ 458.2 , ./ 9 I Wesi f/7. 55 I 8 ~~$f %'.17 ~o :;;:'" - .. '<l - 'II .'0 I Q .... "':: ~ ~II:)~ - 'II I 10 ::) Q ~ ~ > - J-- 5 ~ ~ 4 IJJ 3 I I:) - - - - - - _J I:) I :;:0 - 2 01 Q ~I NS'''U'ZO''L I - - zo'O - - -,OF LOT 4 I .... '" .... '" ~ 1U ~14 Z I , ) I · 13 /I 71 J!S ZII.6/1 '''0.111 IH.~. .~ .8 '" .~ ~ ~'" . - .... ~ L ... ,. c ~: 2 iii": ~:; ... .. '" ~ 3 214..' 100 , CI) .... ..... o. 1-' 1; ! <l 2: <r " ... ~ ~ -~.... iii C NO ~ T.ro.o, 1 .."',,,oz. )0; ,,),.+1,_ l/fl"48'4/-. (!) ... ~ \.I l.Il ~ " ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION- BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE' LOT 7 AND THE NORTH '35 FEET OF LOT 6, BlOO< '3, ADVERTISING-CREATIVE CENTER, e HENNEPIN COUNTY t.tINNESOT A. AREA. 28,787.'31 SQUARE FEET CO. 66 ACRES) ADVERTISING-CREATIVE CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION SURVEY SECTION o DENOTES SET t.tONUt.ENT . DENOTES FOUND t.AONUMENT 80 e :z w =:) :z ~ < Q ~ :z 80 - 8624 CONCRETE CURB s MAD ISON AVENUE W r- CONCRETE 15 i SLAB ..'- - 179.90 589056' 171 E - i / . I ELECTRIC __'. CI) I .......j L - '31. 4 5 ~ TRANSFORMER ....... I ~ I ........... R-20.00 P') ON CONCRETE ....~ I Sl I ( ~-90005/'30' PAD L-I I ~ \ .....- - 100.7 .- -.... I I ! r- WOODEN-"'Oi =- 'I I STORAGE l_ ONE STORY ! ~ SHED ~ CD FRAME BU ILD ING ~ + CONCRETE 8 ~ ~ I SLAB ~ 0 ! T I C~\V' ~ '34.7-4 -100.7'- I \ ,.... 64 4 --+ . . 1'-- . -- 'N WOODEN -" I I It) DEO< I .(~~:) I ..;. , .....-" ~S I~ _ ~CRETE SLAB / _~ ~ -i- ,,~_ I I NORTH LINE OF LOT 6 -..' I ~ I I 6 ci, I I ~ '<~\.\? IS ..-1 _ ~"\1,;))o\ SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH -'. ...-EDGE OF -' I ! NV' .r ~5 F~El2f_':..DT ~_ ___ _ ..... 4''::__l3I!.~INO~J ,I ONE STORY 5.~-199. 87 N890~' ~2' E....... BlOCK BUILDING I I ........ \\ . - to-- "lI;I' - - 3 o o o :z ~ ..;. N . . \, ............ GARY F. CASWELL HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON THIS 4.f~ DAY OF Septol1/Jer , 19 n AND THAT I AU A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ~d71~ PHILLIP A. NELSON, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMEER 17025 e II o 40 80 ~ I SCALE IN FEET CSP 528 SEPTEMEER, 1996 THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ANY FACTS THAT MAY EE DISCLOSED BY A FUlL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEARCH. NOTE' A NORTH EEARING ON THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM. MADISON AVENUE W. - - w ::::> z w ~ <( o ~ z BOY'S DETENTION ANNEX Golden Valley, Minnesota ~. ,. ~ NOIml E9 ~ SMMA \ &,ImlIIMIInIl McKII~ Wrwor FwIcy SCAU:: '/8' - "-0' e e e DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,CONDmONS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") is made as of the day of , 1996, by the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a county governmental unit established by the State of Minnesota ("Declarant") . RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of certain real property in the County of Hennepin together with buildings and improvements thereon (collectively referred to as "Property"), such real property is legally described as follows: Lot 7 and the North 35 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Advertising-Creative Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota B. Declarant is desirous of imposing certain covenants, conditions and restrictions upon the Property for purposes of facilitating its use as a temporary holding facility for male juveniles. C. The City of Golden Valley has required Declarant to make this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in order for Declarant to continue to use the property as a nonconforming use in the Industrial Zoning District. NOW, THEREFORE, in connection with the development of the Property and its continued use, Declarant does hereby declare that each of the following covenants, conditions and restrictions shall exist and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of Declarant, the City of Golden Valley, and all successive owners and users of the Property . e 1. The Property may only be used as a temporary group home for juveniles who are awaiting a court appearance or placement in another facility; no adults or persons who will be, or have been, tried as adults may be housed in or on the Property. 2. The building on the Property shall have no more than sixteen (16) beds for such juveniles and there will be no additional beds for staff members. e 3. The size and footprint of the building shall remain exactly as it is on the date these Declarations are made except that Declarant may add a secured entry area to the building no larger than by feet. 4. Other than the addition of the secured entry area, there will be no change in outside appearance of the building and no signage will be placed on the building. 5. The Property shall be maintained in accordance with all City codes and regulations. e -2- e e e 6. While housed on the Property, the juveniles shall not be permitted to walk or freely move throughout the neighborhood surrounding the Property. 7. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions herein contained shall be perpetual, shall create mutual benefits and covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon any owner, tenant, or occupant of the Property and their respective successors and assigns. 8. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions set forth herein shall be enforceable only by Declarant, any successive owner of the Property, any tenant or occupant of the Property or the Oty of Golden Valley and shall be enforceable by a. Injunctive relief, prohibitive or mandatory, to prevent the breach of or to enforce the performance or obselVance of said covenants, conditions and restrictions; or b. A money judgment for damages by reason of the breach of said covenants, conditions and restrictions; or c. Any combination of the foregoing; or d. In the case of the Oty of Golden Valley, the Oty may consider a continued violation of these covenants to be an abandonment of the -3- nonconforming use and declare the continuation of the use of the Property for any kind of group home a violation of the Zoning Code. e 9. Invalidation of any of the provisions of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions herein, whether by order of court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise, shall in n() way affect any of the provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 10. This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions may not be amended, modified, cancelled, revoked or terminated without the express written consent of the City of Golden Valley. e IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By Its e -4- STATE OF MINNESOTA e COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1996, by , the of the County of Hennepin, a Minnesota governmental unit, on behalf of the County. Notary Public This instrument was prepared by: BEST & FLANAGAN, P.L.L.P. 4000 First Bank Place 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 e After recording return to: Allen D. Barnard Best & Flanagan, P .L.L.P. 4000 First Bank Place 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 adb\30028.doc e -5- , e e e -? f)escrl~-{7~ ~1-.f:,) ~S~.f:P- ~ (~~ ~tJht\5 -liCIt!) tva..r ~r'..rr Ca.fi~ .t:b~C"f'gJ... ~ t.J~ ~UI.MJ ~a/~. The Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center, located at 510 Park Avenue in Minneapolis is an 87 -bed maximum security facility designed to hold juveniles arrested for criminal behavior pending court action. Juveniles are held in this locked facility to ensure the safety of the public, the safety of the juvenile and to ensure that the juvenile appears for his/her next court hearing. Hennepin's existing Juvenile Detention Center was opened in the summer of 1984. During its initial years of operation the average daily population did not exceed the mid-50 to 60 range. However,. the population of the Juvenile Detention Center began to exceed the facility capacity beginning in 1989. In that year, the facility was over capacity on 116 separate days with an average of 5.3 residents beyond the 87-bed capacity. In the following five years, through 1994, overcrowding has steadily increased. The facility was overcrowded on 302 separate days in 1994, with an average of 14.5 residents beyond capacity on each of those days. As overcrowding continues, it has been necessary for the Detention Center to use classrooms as well as recreational and other space for resident sleeping. As a condition of continued Minnesota Department of Corrections licensing, the County has.been expected to take action to reduce the detention population or provide adequate housing. If additional bed space is not obtained, we may need to change detention criteria, resulting in releases of juveniles who present greater community safety risk. A number of counties within the sate are in the same situation as Hennepin and are now in the process of expanding their juvenile detention capacities. In addition to merely building more bed space, Hennepin County has examined the population being detained and believes that the development of a juvenile correctional shelter, foster care beds and community-based intermediate sanctions and procedures can serve as effective alternatives to pretrial secure detention for some juveniles. The Juvenile Court has also been committed to decreasing case processing time which will lead to reductions in the length of stay in detention and the use of the Electronic Home Detention Program has been expanded for eligible juveniles. In conjunction with the above actions, Hennepin County will also need additional secure bed space, given demographic projections, and has turned to 7155 Madison as a viable, cost-effective solution. The building at 7155 Madison would be completely rebuilt on the interior, as well as the exterior if allowed, to provide a 16-bed secure (locked) detention annex. The outside recreation area, as well as the interior, will be built to meet the security standards of both the Juvenile Detention Center as well as the Minnesota Department of Corrections, which would be our licensing authority. The program of this annex would mirror the activities of the JDC. Juveniles would be under the constant supervision of professionally trained staff and will not be allowed outside of the secure parameter with the exception of being transported to and from 510 Park A venue. Transportation between the two buildings will be done by Juvenile Detention staff insecurity vehicles. All intake and release procedures will occur at the , JDC, eliminating the need for police cars to frequent the building. It is anticipated that Juvenile Detention staff will make three transports per day between facilities. e Since we do not have an Annex for juvenile males in existence, we need to look at the total male population of the JDC for statistical data to describe the male population. Data for the male population of JDC for 1995 reveals: · Total number admitted: 3734 young men · Average age: 15.6 years · Average length of stay: 7.6 days · 71 % are young men of color · Warrants for arrest account for 41 % of the admits, with arrests for new crimes accounting for 50 % · Warrants may be issued by probation officers for technical violations (Le., school problems, curfew, drug use, etc.), or by the Juvenile Court for failure to pay a fme or failure to appear for a previously scheduled court hearing for minor offenses (Le., truancy, traffic offenses, curfew, etc.) · Listed below are those primary offenses (most serious) that were presented for admission to the JDC, at a minimum of ten or more times for juvenile males during 1995. W arrants/ A&Ds Auto Thefts Assault Theft Drug-related Offenses Disorderly Conduct Weapon-related Offenses Robbery Burglary Property Damage Ordered Detained in Court Violated Surveillance Loitering with Intent Auto Traffic & Accident Trespassing Run Away/Absenting Criminal Sexual Conduct Violated Electronic Detention Domestic False Information to Police Court Ordered Treatment Term Curfew Probation/Parole Violation Terroristic Threats Fleeing 2178 840 454 554 316 274 188 212 141 121 169 113 91 114 100 65 40 122 135 54 54 51 22 36 30 e e # #' e e e HomicidelManslaughter Forgery Stolen Property Possess/Conceal Obstructing Legal Process Violated Locator Program 25 26 24 34 8 The population that would be housed at 7155 Madison would be the lower risk young men, whose arresting offenses are less serious and who exhibit few behavior problems while in the JDC. For the safety of the detained youth, and for staff, those residents who exhibit serious acting out behavior will be housed at the JDC. When examining the statistics for 1995 for the young men detained, 230 major behavior incidents were recorded, translating into one incident every 1.9 days. Major incidents would generally consist of fights between juveniles; juvenile on juvenile assault, juvenile on staff assault, property damage or escape. With lower risk juveniles being housed at 7155 Madison, the number of behavior incidents would be significantly less. In the past 12 years, due to the structural and procedural security of the JDC, only one young man has escaped from that building. As stated earlier, the interest is to provide the same level of security at 7155 Madison as at the JDC with the lower risk juveniles. Escapes from this proposed annex would be anticipated to be nonexistent. '~ l)uvenile detention facility may locate in GV Jail could house 16 young people County officials are propos- ing to purchase a building at 7155 Madison Ave. W. (south of Medicine Lake Road and west of Douglas Drive) that housed the Home Away shelter for girls until 18 months ago. The shel- ter, built in the 1970s, has been vacant since the county chose not to renew its contract. The first step in the process requires county officials to meet with business owners in the area. Following those meetings, the proposal would be submit- ted to the Planning Commission for an informal public hearing and then to the City Council for a formal public hearing. . If the juvenile detention fa- cility is approved, it would hold young people between the ages of 13 and 17 who are awaiting trial for property damage crimes, theft, burglary, assault or drug offenses. Although the county present- ly has no other such satellite By Sue Webber Staff Writer Juveniles awaiting trial soon may have a temporary home in Golden Valley. A small, 16-bed Hennepin County juvenile detention facil- ity is being proposed in the city. centers for juvenile offenders, overcrowding at the Minneapo- lis juvenile center has forced of- ficials to begin seeking incarcer- ation space in outlying areas, said Dean Mooney, Golden Val- ley's director of public safety. "Downtown [the current ju- venile facility] is experiencing unprecedented numbers and se- vere overcrowding," Mooney told the Golden Valley City Council in a work session last week. "They have really struggled to find a good location," Mooney said. "This is reasonably close to downtown, and it fits their needs in terms of size and loca- tion." Although the "footprint" of the building would remain. un- changed, Mooney said the inte- rior would be reconstructed to make it a secure environment. A security fence would be added JAIL: To Page 9A N\H ap~rtme~t r,hflb p~9gra~ ;lp1ovedl. . /~/ 7~V ParlvAcies;t;o ff~' 1 BySu~\We ~J . Staff ~t~~.~ '~'l - ~- \ Fall cleB: -u w' be mo len,;,. the n tu::1,lor ,on" Hope resid n V..~ . A propo e apartment reH~~ bilitation p am was apPrO'V~d Nov. 12 by): City Council; The cg6ncil agreed to the i suance qf $2.2 million in tax-ex- empt multifamily housing rev- enue bonds for Park Acres . 'J ~ County officials wiIl'""!ieef withlfie"" riefg1ilJ6r!ooo- From Page lA outside to enable residents of the facility to have outdoor exercise, Mooney said. Golden Valley City Manager Bill Joynes conceded that the proposal probably will stir some controversy. Even though the facility is in an indus- trial area, it is within blocks of Sand- burg Middle School on the east, as well as residential areas to the east and north. "There's likely to be some apprehen- sion out there," Joynes said. "It may be a hot issue. But this is a much safer use than in the past." If the county's proposal for a juvenile detention facility is not approved, the site still could be occupied once again by a group home, according to city officials. Mooney said that when the building was occupied by the Home Away shel- ter, Golden Valley Police received what he termed an "unprecedented" number of police calls during the past 5 1/2 years. Thumbing through 270 computer screen printouts of police calls to the fa- cility, Mooney said the group home had "constant runaways and calls for police . service." "It was staffed inadequately for the kids they had," he said. In addition, he said, many of the Home Away residents were enrolled at Sand- burg Middle School, since the facility was walking distance to the school. "These kids [at a county satellite jail] would be wards of the county on short stay," Mooney said. "They're not going to be going to Sandburg." When the building was occupied by the Home Away shelter, Mooney said, Golden Valley Police considered it "the most consumptive property in the city, certainly in the top five. "We're very anxious for that history not to be repeated. We're concerned that this be taken over and managed well, and we're confident the county can do that. The Sheriff's Department would handle it. The county pretty much takes care of Besterwitch: Needs to improve its own." The previous shelter presented police with minimal serious crime problems, Mooney said. "The problem was primarily that we got a lot of calls and had to chase down kids who had run away," he said. When residents of the shelter ran out of town, he said, there were questions about which jurisdiction would respond to retrieve them. "It got to be a big headache," Mooney said. By contrast, he said the present down- town juvenile center has had "zero run- aways" because it is secure, locked and well-staffed. "It is a jail, and a jailbreak is a big deal," Mooney said. "It just doesn't hap- pen with any frequency at all." He conceded that Golden Valley Police could be called to the Madison Avenue fa- cility to help with juveniles who are "re- ally out of contro1." "But those kinds of incidents would be few and far between," Mooney said. He said that such a facility probably would generate "less police calls than the normal apartment building." . The impact on the neighborhood, most of which is an industrial park, would be minimal, Mooney said. "This is probably the most cost-effec- tive way to get the job done for county taxpayers," Mooney said. "Sometimes that gets lost in the discussion." Mark Grimes, Golden Valley's director of planning and development, said the city attorney has been asked to develop a covenant for county officials to sign, stip- ulating that the facility would not ex- pand beyond 16 beds or incarcerate adults. In the meantime, Joynes said, there are philosophical issues to consider: · Should the suburbs be responsible for helping to relieve the city of some of its burdens? · Is it a worthwhile facility? · Is it needed? Joynes said, "We [city officials] say yes, but it doesn't come without a price." Apartment: No city debt From Page 5A From Page lA Council has re- raft housing plan Regular Meeting of the City Council February 4, 1997 . Page 14 Dean Mooney, Director of Public Safety, introduced the agenda item. Allen Barnard and Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed the request and answered questions from the Council. e Sig Fine, Hennepin County, reviewed their request to demolish the current building and build a new detention center on the site and answered questions from the Council. The Architect for the proposed detention center reviewed the plans and answered questions. Steve Svendsen, Bousted Electric, 7135 Madison Avenue West, reviewed the history with the current facility and would like the center demolished and a new facility built, expressed concern over security for employees and customers, and feels a new facility would be much more appealing to him, and requested the zoning requirements be changed to allow for this use. MOVED by LeSuer, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to request the City Staff and Attorney investigate an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow the construction of a new detention facility on the site. e e e e ~te PFr:EIVEO ~"... C 'J 1996 ace label s,ystems inc. December 6, 1996 Sig Fine Hennepin County Community Corrections C-2353 Hennepin County Government Center ~eapolis,~. 55487 Dear Mr. Fine, As a business owner in the very near vacinity of the proposed Juvenile Boys Detention Annex, we are submitting our very strong objections to this proposal. Ace Label has been located in Golden Valley since 1993, and we are currently in process of building a new facility directly across the street from our existing building. There are several reasons that the proposed facility would be detrimental to Ace Label as well as our entire industrial area. 1) Safety- When we moved to Golden Valley in 1993, we carefully looked for the type of neighborhood that would provide for the safety and welfare of our employees. We operate two shifts, so we have employees arriving at very early hours in the morning as well as a second shift that leaves after midnight. 2) Vandalism- Although personal safety comes first, our employees cars are located in a secluded parking lot. We utilize expensive and valuable computer hardware and systems, which would shut us down if they were damaged or vandalized. Since this is an industrial area, it is very quiet, unattended and unpopulated on the weekends. i- 3) Market Value- In order to proceed with our new facility, we must sell the existing building. Our realtor is in agreement with us, that this proposed center could be a , detriment to.the sale and decrease the value of our building. We also face this ' devaluation of the brand new building we are planning. 7100 Madison Ave. W. · Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 · (612) 933-3105 . FAX (612) 545.8771 Page 2 e We realize there are no guarantees about safety and crime anywhere. However, it makes no sense to propose a facility so inconsistant with the industrial nature of this neighborhood. We would be just as opposed if this were an all night pizza parlor or a bar. Although we are not demographic experts, it seems that a detention center would be better placed in a busy, well lite, high traffic area. We would not ask to place our business in the middle of an inappropriate area for our process, so we are in hopes that our wishes will be respected to not put this detention facility in the midst of our operation. Sincerely, ACE LABEL SYSTEMS, INC. t?tL- a. e Art Bakshian President and CEO ~ e cc: Golden Valley Police Department City of Golden Valley Jeff Svendsen, Boustead Electric i- .; . ~ \ ! ~. 868 461.355 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, pLANNING, ZONING of the municipality. The governing body may propose the comprehensive municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the plan, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. A proposed comprehensive plan or an amendment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment proposed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning agency for its recommendation. Unless otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may by resolution by a two-thirds vote of all of its members adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof as the official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance. Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has autho- rized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision IS, or if new territory for which plans or con- trols have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applica\)le to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, devel- opment, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. History: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; 1983 c 216 art 1 s 67; 1985 c 62 s 1,2 462.356 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN ~FEcruAT10N; GENERALLY. Subdivision 1. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recommendation by the planning agency of the comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, the plan- ning agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. subject to the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, an official map, a program for coordination of ~e normal public improvements and ..<vices o[~~e,,~~,~""'~', Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the govern- ing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the munic- ipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the pro- posal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdi- vision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the pro- posed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relation- ship to the comprehensive municipal plan. History: 869 462.357 PRO{ Subdivisio: health, safety, I on the earth's s location, heigh' and other struc other open spat structures for t! and the uses of conservation \ tions I03F.201 in section 216< procedures reg tion as definec manufactured with all other" may divide th districts or zor for each class throughout su other districts ing ordinance application 'oj miles of its lin ing regulation boundaries le- on its side of a town or cO! thereafter enf were situated prehensive ze SUbd' I;: enforce a zor requirements park construe structed, con Subd. 2. for the muni and goals of it to the gove ments of sub ordinance b\ is in conflict Subd. 3 adopted unt: governing b< lished in the the hearing. area of five day of the h partly withir of giving m appropriate notice and ; attested to b ~edings. Tl e MEMORANDUM DA TE: TO: FROM: RE: January 30, 1997 William S. Joynes, City Manager Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Proposal by Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections to Demolish building at 7155 Madison Avenue for Use as a Juvenile Detention Facility e Background For more than a year, the City and Hennepin County have been in discussion over the .. county's desire to purchase a legally nonconforming group residence facility at 7155 Madison Avenue. When it was originally established under a "miscellaneous other uses" clause that is no longer in the zoning code, the facility served runaway teenage girls. The County intends to use it as a juvenile detention facility. The zoning chapter of City Code goes on at some length about what can and cannot be done with nonconforming properties (CC Sec 11.90, Subd. 2 attached). The bottom line is that nonconformities can continue for as long as they remain viable, but the properties cannot be changed in any way unless the change makes them fully conforming. In this case, it is the use that constitutes the nonconformity, not anything about the building or the lot itself. After lengthy investigation by staff and the City Attorney, and after the County signed an agreement outlining exactly how the site would be used, the City determined that the proposed detention facility was similar enough to the original facility that it would not constitute a change in use. The City's Public Safety Department believes that the proposed facility would actually create fewer operational concerns than the original one. A section of state law having nothing to do specifically wifh nonconformities requires public agencies to go through a local review process any time they want to acquire property. The purpose of the review is so that the affected city can determine whether the agency's use of the property would be in keeping with the local comprehensive plan. As part of that review process in the current case, the County met with owners of property near the proposed detention facility. The outcome of the discussion was that the existing structure should be demolished and a new building should be erected on the site as this would better meet the concerns of the neighborhood. e The Current Issues Unfortunately, this would constitute a change to a non-conforming property. It cannot be e permitted under City Code unless the facility would completely meet today's code requirements. Since it is the use that constitutes the nonconformity, there is no way that a new building can make the property fully conforming. State law forbids local Boards of Zoning Appeals from granting variances for uses, so that is not an option for clearing away the nonconforming status of this property. The County has a significant need for facilities of the type that has been proposed. new construction would be less expensive than trying to "retrofit" the existing building, and would better address the concerns of the neighboring property owners. Staff have been asked what, if any, alternatives might be available for allowing the County to proceed. . As stated in the attached letter from Sig Fine of the Department of Community Corrections, he would like an opportunity to discuss this alternative with the City Council at the February 4 meeting in order to get direction from the Council. I see two options open to the City Council. They are: 1. Tell the County that the City will ask the City's staff and attorney to investigate an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow the construction of a new detention facility on the site. 2. Tell the County that the City will not entertain a change to the Zoning Code and that if the County wants to have a detention facility in Golden Valley, it would have to do it in e the existing building and site. Attachment: City Code Section 11.90, Subd. 2 Letter dated January 28, 1997 from Sig Fine e 2 e . 'e e S 11.90 SEC. 11.90. ADMINISTRATION. Subd. 1. Administration and Enforcement. The Director of Public Works is hereby author ized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this Chapter. The Director may delegate this authority to any administrative official or support staff member of the Ci ty, who shall be directly under the control and supervision of the Director of Public Works. Such staff shall have the following duties: A. To issue all permi ts and certificates required by this Chapter. B. To receive, process and forward all applications for various zoning requests as stipulated in this Chapter. C. To cause any building, structure, land use, place or premises to be reviewed and examined and to report in writing the remedy of any condition found to exist therein in violation of any provision of this Chapter. Subd. 2. Non-Conforming Uses. A non-conforming use existing and in use on the effective date of any Section or provlslon of this Chapter may continue to exist. However, a non- conforming use (including buildings and/or structures) shall not be enlarged, expanded, extended, or otherwise altered in scope, character or in physical dimensions. A non-conforming use shall not be changed to another non-conforming use regardless of whether such change would be less non-conforming. Any non-conforming use, building, or structure that is vacated, or that ceases to function or operate for six (6) consecutive months, shall not be allowed to be reestablished unless in full conformity with all applicable provisions of this Chapter. No non-conforming use, building and/or structure, shall be permitted to rebuild, or otherwise reestablish itself, after having been destroyed or damaged to a point where repair or replacement would exceed 50 percent of the assessed value of the building, structure, and/or property. . Subd. 3. Zoning Map Changes and Chapter Amendments. No change shall be made in the boundary line of any zoning district, or in the permi tted and/or condi tional use or regulation for any zoning district, except after an official public hearing and upon a two-thirds aff irma ti ve vote of the Counc il. Zoning boundary changes or Chapter amendments may be initiated by the Council, or by petition of affected persons and property owners within the City. Upon receipt of such a petition, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission shall conduct an informal public hearing within sixty (60) days of receiving said petition, and after notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property involved. Following receipt of the Planning GOLDEN VALLEY CC 293 (6-30-~8) .:;:i;.!),~",-" HennepJDopp~gyn ty ':'f:~;"'-'~ ''':-~~\ .:1~;11"'.~,'k ~,"'-', ',,- J>" ~"<'!.;"', C""'<- ~'i;V:<d'':_ ".i:;'-;,',>, Jame~ M. Bourey, COLlnty Admml~trator ':~,,)::f~f~~~:~; January 28, 1997 ~~~:~~ Mr. Mark Grimes 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes, The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has experienced significant overcrowding of its Juvenile Detention Center (IDC) since 1994. The IDC is a maximum security facility and holds alljuveniles arrested in Hennepin County in need of secure detention pending completion of their court proceedings. The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections sought to build an addition of 2 floors on the present 87 bed facility located in downtown Minneapolis at 510 Park A venue. The cost of doing so became prohibited and we were instructed by the County Commissions to look else where for a solution to our overcrowding and to provide bed space that would be less costly to the citizens of Hennepin County. Since, our department has taken steps to: · review detention criteria to screen out juveniles who do not pose a threat to the community or to themselves · expand the use of our Electronic Home Monitoring Program for appropriate youth. · utilize vacant bed space at the Women's Section of the Adult Workhouse in Plymouth, to operate a detention annex for juvenile female offenders. · contract with St. Joseph's Home for Children in South Minneapolis to provide a staff secure correctional shelter for 16 juveniles who cannot return home but who do not need secure custody. · applied for and received State grant monies for construction/remodeling of secure bed space, which could exist at 7155 Madison in Golden Valley. Department of Community Corrections Juvenile Detention Center 510 Park Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415~ 1597 Phone: (612) 348~8122 FAX: (612) 348~2296 e e e Recycled Paper e In exploring the use of this building for any stated purpose of remodeling the building to provide a 16 bed secure detention annex for young males, Sig Fine, the Director of Institution Services for our department met with the following city officials over a year ago: · Mark Grimes, City Planning · Dean Mooney, Chief of Police From those meetings a set of covenants were agreed upon if this project were to proceed and were amoung others: · To limit the use of the property to 16 beds housing pre dispositional youth who are thoroughly screened before placement in the facility occurs. · To maintain the existing structure. e Our next step was to notify all building owners and/or residents within 500 ft of7155 Madison to discuss our proposal with them. After having addressed their concerns regarding the type of facility we proposed, and how it may impact their businesses, the appearance of the present building was discussed. The property owners asked that we design and show them alternatives sketches in which the old building would be completely demolished and rebuilt. They also gave us design ideas that would make the project more palatable for their businesses. We did as requested and met with the concerned owners on January 15, 1997. Currently we request the opportunity to present our proposal to the Golden Valley City Council on February 4 and at that time request approval to proceed with this project. Sincerely, C~r~ r (65/L) Sig Fine e 7/S~ ~ ~.lu. ,e f3. LeWIs I..EONAHD W. SIMO"ET CHAl.,.I;S S. HeLLOws HAlIOLD C. EVAJt"l'S JOHl'l' H. CAnnOLL J.A1'\1<S D. OLSON' ARC1I1HALJ) SPY.:-:CER HOllI<RT M. SJ{AJ<E ROD1UlT 1... CnOSDY 1..::0:<.\.1<1) ,"\. AOIH",OTO'l'l' RODEHT R. BARTl! N. W...L1'1::1< GnA!'!' AI.I.EN D. BAI<N'ARD HICIIAnD A. PETEnSON THOl'l_\S D. CARLSO" C.ASI:Y .'1... tJ:<DEIUIILL FRANK E. VOOL f\'lANISlTS W. V.\~ PU1'T:::<, JR. JAl'lES C. DIRACL::S JANES A. llon:ono BEST, FLANAGAN, MALONEY, CARROI~L AND OLSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 4040 IDS CENTlm MJ:NNEA.POLJS, ,HINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 339 -7121 AREA CODE 612 CABLE ADDRESS:BESTLM~ JAMES I. DJ:ST (1U02 - 100UI HonERT J. FLANAGAN (1890-19741 OF COUNHHL GEOROE MALON'flY September 16, 1975 Mr. Jon Westlake Director of Planning & Inspection City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Dear Jon: As a follow-up to our personal discussion on the matter this will confirm my opinion that the City Council would have the iIIcretion, under Section 7.03 (20) of the City Zoning Code, to ~it the proposal by Mr. John Raun to locate a shelter home in the Advertising Creative Center. By the same token I think the council could, in its dis- cretion, find that it would be detrimental to the potential residents of such a shelter home, for the home to be located in an industrial section. As you point out in your letter to me of September 9, this type of proposed use would also seemingly fit within Section 11.02 of the Zoning Code, without the, exercise of any particular dis- cretionary judgment on the part of the council. Nevertheless, the fact that this is so, does not preclude the possibility of the council acting pursuant to Section 7.03. If you have any further questions on this matter, please advise. Very truly yours, e Robert M. Skare RMS:sl ~ Mr. Barkley G. Omans, City Manager Appendix I Sec. 11.01 11. INSTITurrONAL 2DNING DISTRICT e Section 11.01. District Established. Institutional Zoning Districts are hereby established as follows: (Legal Description of Areas) (note: This section number is used in Orcinances rezoning tracts of land from Open Development to this Zoning District and from this .Zoning District to any other. As to any specific tract or district, reference is made to the 1955 Village Code and subsequent rezoning ordinances as they appear in the Village Ordinance Book.) Section 11.02. Uses Pe~itted. Tne following uses and no others shall be permitted in the I-I Institutional Zoning Sub-District: 1. Churches; 2. Schools, public and parochial, excepting colleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education; 3. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Village Council, are compatible with the uses specifically described above. The following uses and no others shall be permitted in the 1-2 1nstitu-~ tional Zoning Sub-District: .., 1. Public and private libraries; 2. Ml seums ; 3. COlleges, seminaries and other institutes of higher education; 4. Such other uses which, in the opinion of the Village Council, " are compatible with the uses specifically described above. ~e following uses and no others shall be permitted in the 1-3 1nsti~~- tional Zoning Sub-District: 1. Lodge Halls and private clubs; 2. Hospitals, Rest Homes, Sanitaria, Nursing Homes, Clinics and other buildings incidental to t~e operation thereof; 3. Such other uses ,which in the opinion of the Village Council, are compatible with the uses 'specifically described abov~. e ~...",: e I. PROPOSAL r:ATT_~ Tr\:!"'.r:; A. Purpose of Progrm:l Short-Terln Ernel'r;ency Placement (S'L.:..!"') Shelter HOr.1e has been desiGned in response to the expressed need for additior.2.l shelter facilities in Herr.nepin COll.'"1ty. It is our celief that tcene.[;e girls need a ten.rorarjr placcr.1ent \':hilc: (1) \'-!Orldng Oll.t si tuG. tio!13l problems, (2) a...: a i ting a court hGaring, (3) a',.jai tinE; an opGning in a treatiT:ent facility, or (4) cw).iting a foster hcrGe. During this p~riod of time an cnvlrof'..r.lcnt of concerned su;:,crvision 1;Jil1 on:..'olo a client to more comfortably deal ....lith, cmd more rcn.listicalJ.~ Hork t.hro"..l!:;h pIt-ris \":ith fc.mily and/or social \.;o';;.l(cr. The ~helter nOi.ie \'Jill provic1c eU: altcm.:.tivc to t.he JuveniJ.e Detention Center and to the existing shelter facilities. II. ~. e B. Goals 8:11 Objcctivss of Progre.r.J I. To provice an interir.l shelter progl'o.m for birl::;, aces fourteen to eiGl~tee!1. To provid~ a COnCC1""!1Ca structl:rsc; cnvircr~":1e:1t in uhich a girl can focus directly on the prio:::'it::" of her decisions 0;' pr'oblsrr.s, as opposed to becor.:-- ing aoscr:;ed in the po:.e:1'ci:,;l trct:..-:l2. of a:l i:lte:!:-:iJ:i lh"ing situa-t.io:1. To prov'ide a professioil2.1 :o:ccial \'lorb::r to ass:i.st the eirls in comforta'ol;:r living l:d.th, and sat.isf:.ctoril,T cc::'.;;n:nicc.tin~,; ~::Lth, one o.not;,er. Ti:e pr,')- cess of helpinG each bill fundio:l as a cO:7:patible al1.d rCSIXil1si ':;le rn3[iber of the group Hill be a 'cc:lei'ici.:'~ ler~.rr.il'lg experie:1ce. It v:ill c.lso fe-cil- i tate a f.1ore trunting, an:d.et;r-f:cec l:L ving o.:-rar:gsf.1cnt, \:hich t.:ill stir.~uJ.atc the dccision-md:ing process. IV. To as::;ist eac~ partici:r,8.21t ;':ho is in the procrar;i r;:ore than f'i vo dD.~lS in er.- rollinE in 0. public scLcol p:,osre.;.;. ,;,::; r rssl'lt, thG i!ltC::siv,:: i!TTcJ.\e:.1Cnt \-lith the school ,Jill proyj.de [.'. CO:1stc'nt .:;.'::c..re!1i;SS of a child's level of success. Tutoring \':il1 be providec' for specie.l ac:;.cei.1ic pro~)le;'!ls. The: girls involved in school v:ill be h::::ld o.ccou.'1ta~J.e for their attendance, behavior in class, RnG for co~plcting their academic ~ork. v. To help girls feel that it is their ho:r.c by ir..volvinC them in duties of caring for their perso~1al needs, i.e. f laundry, hou.:::ekeeping~ and coo!cing. As a result, t.hese duties i'Jill lead to the dcvclo:;r:ltmt of the skills in these areas that will ~r.ke them a.:ure of their need to assu~c responsibility to the level their present and future situation may de~~'"1d. VI. To im:?royc tho eirls' a ~)ili t~l to use lci;:;ure time, and to avoid caredo;:! by llrovi.di:;[ recreation",1 oct.i"1!'it.ics on 0 [roup luvel, as 'o?cll as optional ecth;j.ties that a girl maj" c~sa[e in on an individual basis, such as arts and crafts. J..tt.empts Hill be rr.ade to stirr.u..late creative abilities, C'.S Hell as enccurc,ge productive individual hobbies end sldlls. e VII. To assist the referring c.gency in r:wking plans for each girl by 17l.:'.~a.ng available to the case'o!or::er ttc staff's obscrVc.ti.ol1S of the chile.' s (1) general behavior r-~lttcrns. (2) her man118r of relatinc to peer, (3) her manner of relating to w.dults, (11-) her i:illin[!1css to n:::sU.8e responsi.bility, (5) her ability to CCIT"JTI"'J.nic.s.te vlith others in casc:<:l interaction, as \";cll as adjust to a mm situntion. c. Procedures emu l.:ethods 1. Elieibili t;y An7 v-rl is eligible ,..::10 is: a. Approved for plnc8::,cnt by Her..!![;pin CO~Elt~! ~;(;lf2.re, 6l1:.' ether sod:.l sc~ vice agene:r, or fTiYCltcly, a1"(,(::C c.rrCn[Clj~G;1b h~ve been c=.P1JTOVcd for pay- ment of ser\~ccs. b. Capable of functicr~ing in a ccr;~rr;unn..:l SCtti;lp;. c. ;'Tot l~1co::1trolla1)ly ch8:'i~_c:llly dc;sndcnt.., pychot.ic, ph~;sically dis:.bled to the point th~t she requires e;:c2s::Lvc Gttc;;.Gion, or .olho :poscs a real threat. to herself or o~:le:z.' p80pl.C'. e II. Lcfcrrc:,l ?roces~ l\. telerJho~'le call or pcrsonc:l COrlt.Gct fro!:1 the rcforrL"1g t.7or~":~r to dis-:"u.ss the [;irl's situation and the proo;.osis of her havii1g a successful 8:':;-eI'ienc~ in the })rogram v:ill result in a deci:::icn as to Clcc0pta:lce. 'The ,0:o1'1:er :':il1 be ask8d to assess the ?~irl' s pro[']10sis ~"1C~. her level of intcrast iIl bc:i.ne in the prograr.1. The 1':orker is advised to ir:Jprc3s upon her cl.icl1t that the shelter home is not an independan~ li\~ng situatiO:1 or a ~er~issive settinG. P..o ther it is n supervised, temporary hor.1c \"!I1Cre concern for peor.J.e and a belief i.:1 accolU1tability are b2.sic to the entire program. The Lltnlm pro- cedure ~ill be made as expedient Clnd non-c~~berso~e as possible. Eligible girls ~'iill be enteree. into the prograr:1 at the earliest possible tii:1e bct:'leen the hours of 8: 00 a.m. <:.nd 8: CO p.r.1. of an~r gi ve.:1 d2.Y. Ini t.ial medical exar.1S ...dll be nrranGed for at a local medical clinic, unless p:W3icals are arra.'1ged for by the parents or the \";orker. It \'1ill be u..~eces::;ar:.r for girls t.;ho have been transferred directly fror:1 the shelter or the Juven.ile center Hho h~ve already had a physical ro duplicate the process. I-:edical attention \.:i1l be provided as required by the state and county standarc:..s. III. Staff \-lith the asslt'nption that the building is a ten-bed facilit:t and. permits three additional staff bedrooms, the shelter will be staffed by three live-in child care \"iOrkers, plus one social {lOrker, and one-eighth therapeutic director. A minimum of bolO staff tdll be on duty at ;:-,ll times. The child care ~':orker \<li11 be responsible for supervising the girls, assisting the social to!orkar in e t. \'1Orki-I1g cut school pro [rams , cook.i.ng the meals, recordin[ observationz, organ- .ng and cQl':r:,>jng out recr.::aticne.l progrums, nttenc.ing to physical ne'3ds [is ~lell '!r ffi:?ny er.1GLion31 needs of cach girl. The social Harker Hill meet \;ith all the girls revlial'ly t~.!O or three times per.';eek in croup discussions, directed at fac- ilitatinr; cOr:1p3.tiblc livin8. Thiz ,d_ll L"1clude helping the girls ~!ho are possibly an;dous because of not knm'ling l-lhere they ,-:ill be placed next, or the girl \'1ho is hav1ng diff"icl1.lty adjusting to her curren:' living situation. ?he social \'lorker "lill also be availc.~)lc for indilridual conferences with Cirls, "iorkers, or parents. The dirc;ctor 17ill be responziblc for training staff rr:er.lbers and consulting on pro- gram plans. 4':~ e e e S'?otenDer 9, 1075 Rolert '1. ~kare .'lttorney ~t La'J uJl!-0 IDS Center ~':;!1I~e.J~olis. '1n. ::5402 RE: Question of a Shelter Eone Use in an Industria 1 Park D~ar i3ob, i:-:e C ity r"!ana~p.r has asb:d that I contact you rl:garding a proposal for a shelter home to be located in an industriol park in Golden Valley. _ ! do not kncl;.' at this time where the specific huilding is located, except _ that it is in the Advertising Creative Center. Enc1osp.d is a copy of the proposal by ~r. John Raun and a copy of f\ppendix I Section 7.03 (20) of the loning Code. The question is: Could the Council consider this request under Uses Permitted #20? It is my feeling that what th~ intent is under this Section of the Ordinance is that the Council would consider other uses si~ilar to Industrial uses. In lookinq at the Code, his request seerr-inq1'y fits Section 11.07 0-3) of the Institutional Section of the ~0ninq Code. which also i5 r:nclnsed. I am sendinq this information to you to ~ive you an opportunity to look at th~ specifics so h'e may discuss ~1r. Raun's request at the September 12, 1975 sta ff meeting. Sincerely, Jon Hestlake Director of Planning and Inspection Encl e JU/I<o Appendix I Sec. 7.03 9. Hotels and Motor Hotels. . 10. Restaurants (Except drive-in restaurants where customers are served food for consumption on the premises i~ motor vehicles.) 11. Laundries and dry cleaning plants. 12. Offices. (No. 9-12, Ord. No. 145, 6/5/62) 16. (Former Nos. 9-16 deleted Ord. No. 145, 6/5/62 and Ord~ No. 80, 8/4/59) 17.. Gasoline and oil storage subject to-approval of the Village Council as to location, arrangement and quantity. 18. (Deleted Ord. No. 145, 6/5/62) 19. Animal Hospitals where domestic animals are received for treatment, care, and cure, by a duly licensed veterinarjO physician and surgeon in the customary and ordinary pursuit of his profession. 00. Other enterprises or businesses which in the opinion of the Village Council are no more obnoxious or detrimental to the welfare of the community than the enterprises or businesses enumerated in this Section. e 21. Animal Kennels where animals arp. customarily, ordinarily an" usually kept, boarded, cared for, trained, or fed, er bought and sold, as a business or calling, provided, however, that nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the casual sale or purchase of a domestic anL~al or care or feeding of th~ same where such sale or purchase or care or feeding is not done, made, offered, or performed for a profit or in the pursuit of a business, occupation, profession or calling. 22. Research laboratories and pilot plant operations incide~tal thereto. (1955 Code, 6.03, except as indicated.) 22. A building and premises for automobile sales and showing rooms, with incidental and accessory service and repair facilities also permitted, but not ~eq~ired, shall be per- mitted in the industrial districts (subject to the require- ments of Section 7.06 below.) (Ord. No. 200, 4/20/65) 23. Greenhouses with no outside storage. An outside growing area no larger than the greenhouse building area shall be allowed in conjunction with a greenhou~e. Retail sales shall be permitted only where inside and incidental to a wholesale business. (Ord. No. 230, 6/7/66) e 24. Car Washes (subject to the requirements of Section 5.08 of the ZoniI1g Code.) (Ord. No. 229, 7/6/66) .. ~~- lJb Regular Meeting of the City Council, October 6, 1975 Company (now ~!innesota Western Railway Company), west of the Westerly right of way line of Boone Avenue and Southeast of the Southeasterly right of way line of Plymouth Avenue, as they now exist, said parcel being a portion of the premises conveyed to General }!ills, Inc., by Deed dated January 26, 1956 and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota in Book 2078 of Deeds Page 359 as Document Number 2991775, containing 0.772 acres. Subject to casements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any. ~hn Raun - Re: Settlement House: }!r. John Raunfrom Home-Away Inc., was present to request use of the indus~ trian property at ~155 ~!adison as a group shelter home. MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Swartz and carried to approve the use of the property as requested. Councilmember Bix voted nay. .."e }!OVED by Anderson, seconded by Swartz and carried to direct the mayor and manager to draw up an agreenent patterned after the Group Home Ordinance as an interim agreement subject to the adoption of a Shelter Home Ordinance. Councilmember Bix voted n~y. ~ ~ MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Swartz and carried to direct the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney to develop a Shelter Home Ordinance within ninety days. e P.U.D. #14 - Galant P2tio Townhouses: Member Anderson introduced and read the following resolution and MOVED its adoption: RESOLUTION (Accept~nce of Plat and Approval of Plan - Jack Galant - Planned Unit Development Number Fourteen) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Bix and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Anderson, Bix, Heover, Swartz and Thorsen, and the following voted against the same: None, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted; signed by the Nayor and his signatu~e attested by the City Clerk. See Resolution Book page MOVED by Thorsen, seconded by Anderson and carried to set the bond for Phase I of P.U.D. #14 at $66,355. and authorize the mayor and manager to sign the Special Use Perrrlit. Golden Valley-New Hope Interceptor Maintenance A~ree~en~ #54: . MOVED by Bix, seconded by Anderson and carried to continne this item to the next council meeting of October 20, 1975. 04/10/97 14:33 ftS44 0398 APR 10 '97 13:00 QUALlTEK GV PARK & REC 19J001 P. 1/1 e Hennepin County Ata ~ ~ B"""~ t;'. . ~i\ ~ ':l~..'" -..o:!;. " - . April I. 1997 r.tf X 117ft , I 'l.- Wi S~F O?,q? ~ 4o/~ u t>-..l/~' Duane Devereaux. 6100 Jeffrey Lane Edina. MN 55436 RECEIVED APR 1 0 1997 R.e: Proposed Juvenile Boys Detention Annex 7155 Madison Avenue West Dear Duane Devereaux;: Tht!re will be a meeting on Friday. April] 1. 1997. at 1:00 p.rn.., a.I the. Golden Valley City Hall, in the City Council Conference R.oom (across the hall from the Council ChamberS) tit in order to review the floor plan and look at building elevations. Nothing is final at this stage and your presence and input at this meeting are welcome and appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely. 1::!:::! ~/~ Architect-Project Manager "f-/tJ -91 ~ .fhJ~. .' I~ J:b I. /flu 3. .1"'k. npb J ~/d !bJ~ ~ ~ Jo.. () c.uI oS i~ 0.-.& ,ft.- ,'~ - : ~ 1 :rn.~"t..( ~i'"O;~? - ; ~~ ~>'-,~ . I~M".~/~~ 1~ ~ ~ 1I..J."~iI~ ~ }.~j ~ofPul.UcWark, .; A-2208 Henneptn. County OOV\m\Dm\t Center Minneapolis, Minnesota S5~1.o228 (612) 348.2852 FAX:(612) 348~3492 &c,dr:d l'GJler . .